This is a post I feel compelled to write. While searching for other Catholic blogs I stumbled upon a fellow Catholic who is also a homosexual. Yet, looking at his blog it seems it's better to describe him as a homosexual who also happens to be Catholic. That being said, Mr.
Bayly is a good writer and it is obvious that the Church's position on this matter bothers him a great deal. He feels passionately that things must change and that the Church must see this matter in a different light.
I chose to read part III of his essay titled The Many Forms of Courage. I found myself speaking out loud to the computer
screen, and so, that lead me to write down a few thoughts of my own. I'd rather not have to address this issue, but it seems that it truly has become a tough one in today's world and in today's Church. I am no authority that's for sure. But, I do have a great love for JP
II's Theology of the Body and for human life as God made it, male and female, and the great revelations that can be discovered in that plan. These are my thoughts in response to his.
He begins: "So what about the Book of Genesis and the 'design' supposedly laid out by God through its story of Adam and Eve - a 'design' vigorously defended and promulgated by movements such as Courage and by theological undertakings such as Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body? All such leave me to wonder: are we to subscribe to...the Genesis account of human creation as being literally and historically true?"
We are not required to believe they are
literally true but must acknowledge that they point to a larger and far more significant
spiritual meaning assigned to our human sexuality and our natures as male and female. Because the Genesis account is the inspired Word of God we must believe that there is a deeper spiritual meaning behind our biology. God could have chosen
any path for us,
any means for procreation,
any behavior to bring forth love and communion between people. But, He chose
this way. This is made clear from the Genesis account. If He created
other purposes and ways of loving and communion and life-giving between human beings other than male /female, why are they so obviously
absent from this powerful Original account of Creation? Why is there not any mention of
another way?
He continues...'Based on science's current understanding of the origins and stability of sexual orientation, God made Adam, Eve, and Steve; and until we have a theology that can deal with that complexity the Church is neither healthy nor living in reality."
Of course there were other men on earth. There were other women as well. I do not reject science and its findings about the biological origins of mankind. But I do reject the notion that simply because there could be other males along with God's beloved first-man, Adam, that this means that Adam was free to embrace "Steve" as his God-made partner.
Mr. Bayly states "In light of such an insight, I'm intrigued when people like Alice Von Hildebrand declare that 'God did intend to create human beings of two different sexes. He clearly had His own divine plan in mind, and we ought to discover reverently what this plan is'...I'm intrigued because I'm left wondering: what are the sources being used to support such a theological claim and such an assumption about 'the Creator's Design'?...And what of those who don't fit this 'design'?"
The sources for "such a claim" are
our very bodies themselves. They speak to us. If we would look upon our bodies and read them, listen to what their shape and size and parts are telling us about their purpose and meaning, it would be
clear that these claims are supported and reinforced by our God-given flesh and bones themselves! As for those who feel they "don't fit" this Design, they do! You are made a man or a woman because of how God chose to design our bodies, not by how we choose to use them. If a man acts like a dog is he no longer a man? Our sexual behavior is an
extension of our masculine or feminine identities, not the foundation of our identities.
"...Pope John Paul II's interpretation of Genesis in his Theology of the Body is just that, an interpretation...it needs to be measured against a number of things - scripture and tradition, of course, but also reason and human experience...Yet in the case of the latter, the pope's interpretation (obviously shared by Von Hildebrand and others) fails to acknowledge or reflect the fullness of human sexual experience."
The failings of JP II to address "the fullness of human sexual experience" depends upon your definition of that. More variety (for lack of a better word) within human sexual experience does not equal a more "full" experience. Human sexual experience has many variations that people universally find deplorable. I'll refrain from mentioning them here as not to offend. But we all know of some deviants' thirst for hurtful and damaging sexual experiences that any decent person would rightly reject as not part of a "fullness of human sexual experience".
I agree and do not doubt that as Mr. Bayly says "...GLBT people...can and do experience sexual relationships marked by...love." But he goes on to ask "Shouldn't such experiences be considered as sources in any theological discussion on human sexuality? And if not, why not?"
My response to those questions is that they should be considered as sources in any theological discussion of suffering and sacrifice but not on human sexuality. Why not? Because these relationships/experiences are lacking two essential components which go to the very heart of the mystery that God poured into human sexuality. One, they lack complementarity, and two, they lack the potential for
fruitfulness. Complementarity and
fruitfulness go hand in hand. Our bodies have been so lovingly designed as to not only fit together perfectly in a physical way but that our feminine and masculine natures fit together on a psychic and spiritual level as well. This is at the same time
reinforced by the awesome power of the creation of new life. What greater testament could God give to man and woman that they have been destined since Creation to be for one another, two halves of a whole, than to give them a part,
a role in creation themselves?!
We must be very careful not to mistake emotions which rise up in us, due to a sexual experience, as evidence of the authenticity of the relationship. They fool the mind by way of the heart which in turn darkens the soul and disables its ability to discern truth any longer. A good example of a sexual experience
"marked by love" is one that is quite common today. Many people share in the "human sexual experience" of serial monogamy. They "love" each person. They are not intentionally trying to hurt the other or to hurt themselves. But hurt always happens. I think Mr. Bayly would agree with that. Should this be the kind of "reality of human experience" we use as a guiding principle when trying to discern God's plan for us, our sexuality, and our most important human relationships?
He continues later saying "...Now, theologians are assuming that the other direction of inquiry is important as well: What does our sexual experience reveal about God?..." this is after he notes that historically theologians have approached matters pertaining to human sexuality from a God, Scripture, Church down direction verses a human experience pointing up type approach. Mr. Bayly sees much more possibility for progress, in the area of the Church's positions on human sexuality, using this newer, more bottom-up type theology.
Like any other human experience, the Mystery of God can only be glimpsed proportionally to how much that human experience
honors His Divine Plan. Example: A classic human experience is that of
suffering. There is much that suffering can reveal to us about God. But this is only possible in as much as the sufferer - suffers well. One's human experience of suffering can be an ugly, self-absorbed, state leading one to reject others and hurt those around him. Does this human experience lead him to a greater understanding of God? No. But, if he suffers like Christ, like the Church defines good, redemptive suffering, then he gains, through this human experience, a glimpse into the Mystery of God. Likewise, human sexual experience cannot generally be considered a viable path from which we enter into a greater knowledge of God, unless that experience is one which is true to the Divine Plan.
His essay continues and then he makes this point.
"When we acknowledge the significance of human experience in discerning foundational truths about human life and relationships, the role of the laity comes into much clearer focus." He goes on to argue that the opinions of the laity are a valid argument for a greater willingness on the part of the Church to accept homosexuality as an acceptable form of love/sexual relationship. A common theme of his argument is of personal experience shaping theological thought. The phrase "personal experience" is used often and I feel he leans on it heavily.But, how can human experience shape "foundational truths"? The very words "foundational" and "truths"
connotes "from the beginning" and "The Truth" - which is Jesus Himself! How can we attempt as
creatures of the Creator to give such power and authority to our own human experiences? Is that not bold and very pride-filled on our part? This is especially true when we consider that we are dealing with personal experiences that are gained while in a state of fallen nature. We are
NOT the men and women God wanted us to be. We are working within the framework of natures which still suffer the effects of original sin. This puts all our human experiences at a great disadvantage then, when trying to use them as basis for theological truths. This is exactly why we need to first look to God,
Scripture, and His Church for what defines authentic humanity. We are easily fooled by our own desires. We try to create God in our image because often it can be very painful for us to conform ourselves to His image instead.
He goes on to describe another author's reflections at length. Her name is Donna Schaper. He quotes her as saying "the radical nature of the risen christ: He is more like a friend, more like the gardener, more like a woman. He is not big but little, not strong but weak, not above us but one of us. ..." Her mistake lies in her separation of these qualities. The Mystery of the Incarnation is that Jesus became God made Man. This means as scripture clearly tells us that He is very easily the alpha
and the omega, He is big
and allowed Himself to be little, He is strong
and allowed Himself to be weak, He is above us
and one of us. It's not an either/or thing. More importantly, what is to be gained by bringing Jesus "down to our level" like this? Why is this type of belittling of Jesus'
awesome omnipotent power,
necessary for us to feel close to Him? The very purpose of His coming to earth was to
lift us up to Him. He wants us, and His death on the cross
allows us, the possibility
to rise up to His level. We need not bring Him down. We are destined by The Creator Himself to come
up and be "perfect like my Father in heaven is perfect".
Mr. Bayly ends his essay with a touching article excerpt written by his friend Chad. It seems a very genuine description of a man who has suffered much and yet longs to be close to his Savior Jesus Christ. My hope is that Jesus will continue to touch his heart and lead Him to his ultimate destiny - heaven. That is what we all are called to pursue. I have only the best of intentions for writing my responses to Mr.
Bayly's points. I do not seek to judge him personally. I do hope to make clear that a rejection of homosexuality as disordered is a proper response to this "human experience".
Clearly, many in modern society today see this as a non issue anymore. With the wide acceptance of artificial contraception, the sexual act has become defined as an urge or instinct to be managed. Modern science has gone beyond the scientific when it presumes that its knowledge can erase man's soul and therefore his God-given identity as well. We must remember that science provides knowledge not Truth. Scientists argue we are merely highly intelligent, highly evolved animals. Sex is merely an instinct or urge which we can choose to respond to in a variety of ways to satisfy. This type of argument supports the thesis of homosexuality as just another type of human love/sexual expression, no better and no worse than heterosexuality.
But those who admit that there
is a God, and that we are made in His image, and have a soul and an ultimate destiny to become perfect as to attain heaven, cannot argue from science's premise then. Taking God's creation seriously we must really look at ourselves and our bodies, and see the mystical meaning God has inscribed in them. There in lies the answer to the question the author asked early on in his article:
"...should the design dictate the reality of human experience, or should the diverse reality of human experience inform our understanding of the design? God thinks very highly of the human body. God found it a worthy place to live, hiding Himself within his mother's womb. He elevated the human body to its highest dignity by taking it on Himself. We should think MORE of it, not less. It it not a tool to be used to satisfy the demands of human experience. It is a powerful witness to The Truth. Let us listen to it then and the Truth will set us Free.Mr.
Bayly's article can be found in full at his blog. For some of you there may be artwork posted there that will offend you or bother you at some level - so a "heads up" on that. Here is his page
http://thewildreed.blogspot.com/2007/01/many-forms-of-courage-part-iii.html
