In my November 10 post we explored the
real question raised by the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops about welcoming
homosexuals in the Church. Today we’ll further reflect on this pastoral
challenge in light of a fundamental question:
Given that the whole of human sexuality was
wounded by original sin, how do the struggles of homosexuality compare with
those of heterosexuality? Are there any similarities amid the obvious
differences, and if so can we draw upon these similarities to minister to people
with a predominantly same-sex attraction and help lead them to fulfillment
through their sexual orientation?
Let’s begin by revisiting the theological
foundation of human sexuality expressed by the first man’s reaction upon seeing
the first woman (both of them naked) in the second creation story in Genesis: “This one, at last, is bone of my bones and
flesh of my flesh.” (Genesis 2:23)
He was fascinated with her body, but for
different reasons than man today is fascinated with a woman’s body. At this
point the man and the woman did not yet know sin; their vision was perfectly clear,
not clouded by impure thoughts and selfish desires. They saw in each other’s naked
bodies only the beauty and glory of the God who just created them, and the privilege
to love each other with their bodies as God loves. The first man and
woman saw in each other’s bodies the call to become one in loving and life-giving
communion, to become the very image of the Holy Trinity. That is what fascinated
and excited them about each other’s bodies.
The man in this original state of
innocence could not be excited by another man’s body, for he would not see any
way to join himself to another man in a fruitful union imaging the Holy Trinity.
The woman could not be excited by the body of another woman. Man and woman were
created with an innate yearning to join with each other in fruitful union, and
their bodies were designed to accommodate that yearning.
After the fall into sin (where humanity
no longer knew only goodness, but now evil as well) human sexuality lost its purely
God-centered focus. The self-centered allure of pleasure now tempted the man
and the woman, competing with the true meaning of their sexuality--and it often
won. The excitement of genital activity shifted from the God-centered participation
in divine love to the self-centered lust for pleasure; once that shift was made
humanity fell into its ultimate trap, which is spelled out simply as follows:
When we seek only God we are satisfied,
for only God can fulfill our needs. When we seek things other than God we are
never satisfied, so we search for fulfillment in novel ways that temporarily
please us but never really satisfy.
That’s what happened when humanity lost the
true focus of sexuality. Having lost sight of its divine purpose men and women
began to experiment, employing other parts of each other’s bodies in search of
sexual fulfillment, parts that were not designed to be employed in this manner.
Men also began to experiment with men, and women with women. They even began
experimenting with their own bodies, finding ways to stimulate themselves
without a partner, becoming totally self-absorbed in their own pleasure and
eliminating the unitive and procreative purpose.
None of this ultimately satisfies,
because none of it is of God. And yet fallen man continues to explore these futile
avenues, no matter how many times they result in a dead-end.
In the context of the question at hand,
when it comes to all of these un-Godly sexual feelings and practices we need to
ask: are homosexuals at least in the same boat as heterosexuals in falling
short of the plan for sexuality?
Think about it: a heterosexual person
who has entertained fantasies about or engaged in genital activity involving
non-sexual body parts, or who has given themselves sexual pleasure in solitude,
or who has engaged in natural genital union outside the marriage covenant, or
in the marriage covenant while sterilizing its procreative function, or when
driven by the primary motive of self-seeking pleasure rather than the
self-donation of Godly love, really doesn’t have a stone to throw at anyone.
All of these sexual thoughts and behaviors--whether one is predominantly
heterosexual or homosexual in orientation--have the same root cause. We all
came from the same place.
Does that not place us in the same boat?
(The image of a boat is used here not coincidentally, by the way, since it is a
prime image of the Church.)
Some would argue no. There is a
fundamental difference that seems to be the crux of the matter, that makes many
people mistakenly view the law of the body as discriminatory to those with a same-sex
attraction: heterosexuals have the opportunity to express the true nuptial
meaning of the body (the image of God’s self-donating, fruitful and covenantal love
with another) but homosexuals do not. Doesn’t justice dictate they also be
allowed to have a dedicated partner to love?
But the question is based on the fallacy
that homosexuals do not have the opportunity to express the true nuptial
meaning of the body, the expression that God intends for every human body. But
the fact is they do, and they can express the true nuptial meaning of the body
in a powerful way that many heterosexuals do.
St. John Paul II taught that emphatically
in his Theology of the Body. We’ll explore that topic in my next post.
