Catholic Morality and Gay Sex

The Catholic Church's position—one with ties both to revelation and moral reason—is that same-sex sexual activity is an intrinsic moral evil.

Of course, the Church recognizes that where there is compulsion, there is not sin. This moral doctrine is prior to all considerations of guilt or culpability. An active homosexual may be said to be totally innocent of "mortal sin" or even "venial sin" given certain circumstances.

Whether an individual is guilty of sins committed is something we cannot know--God alone is fully aware of the drama of grace and freedom inside a soul. Thus to judge is to sin. But whether an action (in the abstract) is a sin, and thus whether it ought to be avoided, tolerated or prevented--this can be known.

Towards that end, I quote a former professor of mine, Fr. Ed Oakes, S.J.:

Among secularists, gay activists, liberal politicians, and the like, it is taken for granted that homosexual urgings are “natural,” in the sense of being innate (the word nature comes from the Latin natus, “to be born” as, in fact, does the word innate); and since the urges are natural in that sense (or so goes the claim), what’s wrong with satisfying them? For the Catholic Church, however, nature always carries a teleological implication, and since the sex organs are also called reproductive organs, it represents an abuse of their function to make use of them in ways that violate their reproductive purposes.

To go a little deeper, here is a paraphrase of the argument presented by Persona Humana (1975), and in the case of the last bullet, the "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" (1985):

• The right treatment of human beings depends on knowing correctly what human beings are (and their dignity), how they work and the purpose of their life.
• Certain things about human beings never change; thus reason can show that certain right treatment of human beings also never changes.
• Sexual morality is one of those kinds of right treatment that doesn't change, because it is based in the natural order of sex.
• To treat sex right, make sure your choices do justice to sex's natural end.
• A direct quote is appropriate: "To choose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent."
  

Catholicism is confident that the only scripture necessary to teach and learn about sexual morality is the verse written into the human body itself. Although appeal to Natural Law always implies a certain appeal to the sacredness of "creation" (in turn, implying a creator), appeals to human rights are no different. Both stem ultimately from the belief in an objective natural order that prescribes proper treatment of human beings. Throw out natural law and you throw out the idea of natural rights with it.

Yet in the case of sexual morality, there is more at stake than doing something simply because “Mother Nature said so.”

For Catholic morality, there is an inherent bond between sex and what sex produces: human beings, and family. After all, the latter two did not spring magically into being without the former. Their dignity is fundamentally shaped—and at times defaced—by the manner in which sex is treated. Sex has a telos, an appointed destiny, which when sabotaged robs the act of its original (originating) meaning. Within sex resides a power that is as awesome as it is terrifying: the power to make a person. The dignity of a thing is rooted in its origin; and so we abuse, pervert, or cheapen sex at our own peril.

Nor are families invulnerable; consider the adage, “blood is thicker than water”. The very power of family, its binding force, resides in the honor of shared, real blood. Yes, the bonds of friendship, adoptee, step-brother and step-sister can be de facto stronger than those of physical blood ties. But blood and sex remain the definitive origin of family’s powerful meaning, a meaning that it retains when applied to permanent bonds outside blood. If family is redefined so as to erase or diminish its biological origin, all that is left of “family” is any association of semi-permanent cohabitators--which is to say, nothing at all. That is the logical consequence now present in states that legalize gay marriage or mandate adoption to same-sex couples. Blood is no longer thicker than water; blood is not recognized at all; our relationships are all water.

Thus, for me, no system of morality, besides that of the Catholic Church, appears to do justice to the ineffable mysteries of life's beginning.

Perhaps I should pose a challenge to thoughtful opponents. If you seek to persuade, get to the heart of the issue. Is the Church wrong to believe that sex has a telos, an original aim that issues from its very nature? Does nothing have an original, natural aim? Is natural law illegitimate? Is the Church wrong to believe that sex has an inherent connection to life's most important realities--to life and to family--and that its mistreatment decays the value of those things? Is the Church wrong to link sexual licentiousness with a decay of civilization? Is the Church wrong to seek to do something about that?

"But Mr. Zimmerman," I hear students saying, "morality is subjective." This is the nuclear missile of value disputes. However, the one who utters it never actually believes it. Nothing is as offensive to these folks as when the Church tries to stand in the way of the wish-fulfillment of well-meaning homosexual couples. The implication is that there is something objectively immoral about the Church's behavior. So why do we get to be absolutists on one issue but we must be relativists on another? That looks like a double-standard.

Ultimately, the old "subjective" chestnut is accurately translated: "your morality is subjective". Claims made in favor of public sexual morality are locked away in the closet of dubious and disputable ideas. People disagree with them, therefore they are disagreeable. The very fact that some reject sexual morality becomes itself evidence against sexual morality.

Am I the only one who smells the zeitgeist in this line of reasoning? All that I ask is that contenders in the coliseum of culture be willing to clash swords with the Church instead of darting into holes and trap doors. Do not respond to a duel by playing hide-and-go-seek. Catholic morality throws its hat into the ring. Are you going to connect a punch, or swing at shadows and declare victory?