In the hierarchy of concupiscence, I would locate homoeroticism at the lowest level of seriousness. The worst are sins against charity. So I will list the lowest level (wrong), the second level (very bad), and the third level (horrendous, vile, despicable). All sins against chastity, including the lesser ones, are grave because they violate the sacrality of the masculine-feminine body in the profound dimensions of interiority, intimacy and fecundity. Objectively, there is a range in seriousness. Subjectively, of course, this is the most opaque, mysterious, and unfathonable of all human arenas: we dare not judge the human heart, but we are obliged to judge right from wrong.
The lowest level would be those that do not directly or deliberately violate love, the font of all virtue. Examples: impurity in look and thought, use of pornography, masturbation. Such disrespect the natural dignity of the sexed, gendered body but more particularly offend the holiness of the body as "temple of the Holy Spirit" for the baptised. Also in this group: those who in the passion of romance surrender to eros, aware only of affection for the beloved, often intoxicated with joy and unaware of anything bad. Such are also ignorant about the profound dignity and dangers of eros. The Church in the sacrament of confession is very merciful to such sins as they often arise in conditions of diminished freedom and deliberation: infatuation, anxiety, insecurity, ignorance, mimetic compulsion, depression and inebriation. Same-sex actions between consenting adults may fall at the high end of this low group: basically a mutuality in masturbation if not abusive or dominating. They might be roughly equivalent to contraceptive intimacy in marriage. Personally, my disapproval of homosexual fornication is weaker than that of heterosexual sin because my paternal instincts make me protective of the woman: if two adult men choose that option it does not effect me emotionally at all.
The second level offenses are very bad as they directly violate charity or the sacred. Examples: adultery which violates matrimony, fornication by priest or religious which offends the vow, prostitution which objectifies and abuses the woman, intentional seduction for pleasure, and public-contraceptive cohabitation which infantilizes the male while disrespecting the woman and giving public scandal.
The most vile actions, which call out to heaven for revenge, entail a disrect assault upon the innocent and vulnerable: rape, child abuse.
Returning to homosexuality: This attraction is often, but not always, accompanied by deep compassion, creativity, enhanced aesthetic and liturgical sensibility, generosity, intelligence, a superior sense of irony and humor, and genuine love for God and Church. This is why so many such men are drawn to the priesthood and have served with distinction and holiness. This eventuates, of course, when the man is free of compulsion and generally wholesome psychologically and spiritually.
Likewise, frequently, but not always, this attraction is accompanied by weakened masculine self-confidence, a disconnect with the father, an insecurity with other men, an aversion to authority (exercising it and complying with it), obsession with appearance and youth and narcissism. So here we arrive at the heart of the problem: not the sexual attraction nor even the sin itself! The problem with the gay movement is the narcissism, the underlying insecurity and emptiness, the demand for moral approval, and the rage against paternal disapproval. To be clear: homosexuals, male and female, that I know live their lives peacefully; they are fighting no culture war; they are good to me and I am good to them. There is mutual respect and affection. There is no problem. But on the broader social level, the gay movement is an irrational, ferocious and absolute demand for approbation. It simply cannot accept the traditional religious censure of sterile sexuality. It is a desperate ultimatum: you approve these acts, you bake my wedding cake, or you will be cancelled as a hateful, ignorant homophobe. What we are dealing with here is not debate or disagreement, but the anguish of a child who feels despised by his father. This is very painful, very difficult.
The Catholic gay liberation crusade of Fr. Martin and Cardinals Tobin and Cupich under the protection of Pope Francis, is a compassionate, but misguided response to this anguish. It is indulgent and ennabling. It is not paternal because it is not truthful. A wise father will remain peacefully in the truth as he holds his tormented son close to his loving heart.
No comments:
Post a Comment