By Diogenes (articles ) | Nov 16, 2006
The opening lines of an article about the bishops' pastoral statement, from the Richmond Times-Dispatch:
The Catholic Church isn't asking homosexuals to do anything that isn't also required of unmarried heterosexuals, say several Richmond-area Catholics.
"I'm a widower, and I don't have sex," said Tom McGranahan, a member of St. Bridget Catholic Church on Three Chopt Road. "The only way the church allows sex is in marriage between a man and a woman."
McGranahan's observation isn't novel, but when was the last time you saw a comparably contrarian view expressed 1) in an ordinary city newspaper, 2) in an article on a hot news topic, and 3) not buried deep in the "need some quote from supporter" zone?
All comments are moderated. To lighten our editing burden, only current donors are allowed to Sound Off. If you are a donor, log in to see the comment form; otherwise please support our work, and Sound Off!
Posted by: ladybird -
Nov. 20, 2006 1:54 PM ET USA
I'm with you, Tomecom! Not just contraception, either. Any act that is not unitive and procreative and frustrates the God-given purpose of sexuality. It isn't just that "sex outside of marriage is a sin" It's that sex that isn't open to the possibility of procreation that is a sin. And God ordained that the act of procreation should occur in a marriage - the seat of a family. That's why sex outside of marriage is a sin. And why any sex act that is not open to life is a sin.
Posted by: -
Nov. 18, 2006 12:28 PM ET USA
Good point Diogenes, but I winced at a later bit-o-wisdom from a naive progressive: "Steiner, who describes herself as a liberal Catholic who still has her faith, said: "Just about everybody I know is pro-family planning. I don't understand why [the bishops] don't get that part. I was born in Ireland, and I knew a lot of little girls whose moms died in childbirth because they had one child after another." Cicero had it: "we are all, in the end, slaves of the law that we might be free."
Posted by: Hammer of Heretics -
Nov. 18, 2006 12:10 PM ET USA
If by innate, you mean that homosexuals suffer from a very real, and disordered compulsion, I would agree that homosexuality is "innate." I don't for a minute believe that changing sexual orientation is a simple matter, or that it is a simple matter of choice any more than any compulsive behavior is a simple matter of choice. I don't see why so many people insist that there must be a genetic link when none can be found. There are many behaviors that develop without the need for a genetic link
Posted by: poor soul -
Nov. 18, 2006 8:21 AM ET USA
Excellent points by all, not that my humble opinion necessarily means very much. Most notably imho are the comments by tomecom and Sterling. I remember in my psych classes reading about how some men are born with XYY chromosomes. Furthermore, that extra Y is correlated with a higher likelihood to be involved with crime. Does that mean they have the "right" to commit crime?
Posted by: JW -
Nov. 17, 2006 2:53 PM ET USA
Winky, I'd wager plenty of sexual sin occurs within marriages. I'd maintain that contraception within marriage so weakened the institution of marriage that sex outside of marriage became accepted by our society.
Posted by: -
Nov. 17, 2006 1:50 PM ET USA
It is indeed wonderful that there should be such a story in an ordinary newspaper. It underlines the importance of the Church promoting chastity for all. What's often not understood about the widespread support for gay sex is that if gay sex is ok then so is lots of (all?) other sex outside of marriage. And that's where most of the sexual sinning is going on -- and where very major social/cultural problems are being bred.
Posted by: hUMPTY dUMPTY -
Nov. 17, 2006 8:17 AM ET USA
"Why would gays seek marriage when heterosexual marriage is such a mess?" Elton John
Posted by: Sterling -
Nov. 16, 2006 10:58 PM ET USA
I think this shows why we shouldn't be so afraid of the possibility that homosexuality may - MAY, PERHAPS, POSSIBLY - be innate. We seem so afraid that if people can be "born" with homosexual tendencies that means they have a "right" to homosexual relations. But there are many people who have no "right" to sexual relations - people who never, despite their wishes, find a spouse - widows - widowers. None of us have a right to sex, as we'd realize if, God forbid, our spouses died tomorrow.
Posted by: -
Nov. 16, 2006 5:18 PM ET USA
Can anyone give a sound, logical, theological argument for homosexuals having the ability to follow their own sexual laws contrary to Church teaching? If so, then we all can justify any perversion we wish to indulge in. So, it is difficult to follow rules. The road to redemption is full of potholes. We shall make it , by the grace of God.
Posted by: Gil125 -
Nov. 16, 2006 3:56 PM ET USA
Two possibilities: 1- Alberta Lindsey is that rara avis, a believing Catholic who is a reporter. I was one. Lonely, but there I was. 2- Much more likely is that she is merely a very skillful reporter who finds the most provocative thing she can to lead with. Wake the reader up with something utterly unexpected. This was a second-day lede on the story---local reaction. So she didn't have to tell it all right at the top. It's a feature. (I tried to fit into this category, too.)