The homosexual matrix.
Andrew Szebenyi S.J.
Le Moyne College, Syracuse, NY. 2003.
I am puzzled by the condemnation of something someone is born with. If born
with it, then it is God’s design. If God’s design it is good. We should
not presume to tell God what is good.
Also, it seems to me that our sexuality is fulfilled primarily in relationship.
The “It is not good for us to be alone” comes before children. (Genesis
2)
Tradition is very much culture related and sometimes cultures harbor errors,
and cultures change. Changes are often the result of better understanding, the
slow correction of ignorance, and the slow change of the obsolescent. The idea
of a single pattern of relationship (male - female) is traditional. If I take
the homosexual orientation as God’s given, my conclusion should be that
there are then more than a single pattern to relationships. At least two: heterosexual
and homosexual. The traditional concept is far too restrictive.
Relationship is essential part of our sexuality. More basic than to have children.
To deny someone its full development under penalty of sin and damnation is exceedingly
cruel and harsh. It is like taking away the meaning of human life for some people.
It is like “castrating” people, because they are not the main trend
of society.
This is the way the argument goes. We accept homosexual orientation with compassion,
but homosexual acts are intrinsically evil. Why are they evil? Because they
are sexual and at the same time they are not procreative. They frustrate the
natural meaning of sex. So? We do use our genitals for other things than procreation.
We all pee. But seriously. The idea is that all sexual acts must be open to
procreation. Since homosexual acts are not procreative, they must be intrinsically
disordered. On the other hand, if we take that homosexual orientation is God’s
given, and the idea that relationship is more basic than procreation, this argument
will not hold.
Today we must practice reproductive restraint to achieve a much needed demographic
transition toward balance with the earth. Do those of the “traditional”
view condemn then to sexual abstinence not only all homosexuals, but also all
heterosexuals as well after they had their “2.1” children? This would
be again exceedingly cruel and harsh, and most destructive to all, including
marriage and the family.
It would not be, because there is natural family planning. My friend, NFP is
neither natural nor planning. I can prove that from Bio 101.
So I say: Come off it! Use both, your heart and your head. Love people, and
love our humanity the way God made us. We are God’s children. Do not sacrifice
warm human lives on the altar of cold principles. Life is greater than rules
and God is greater than life. You know, God gave us one commandment only.
We should, therefore, modify the status quo into something that is more oriented
toward pastoral care and is less condemnatory. We should work out something
that is functional in our present needs.
Meanwhile we are forced into the unhappy situation of choosing the lesser of
two evils. Which is the “lesser” depends on the conscience of each
one of us.