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.

Return to Disputed Topics