Saturday, January 14, 2012

Quote of the Day

I think the church has fetishized genitality at the expense of a deeper and richer understanding of the possibilities of sexual love. Church teaching now acknowledges that the unitive dimension of sexuality is valid even when a marriage is infertile, but this defeats any appeal to natural law to defend the church’s opposition to gay relationships. The criterion of goodness in any sexual relationship is surely not reducible to every genital act (which is a major flaw in Humanae vitae). Rather, we need to ask how these acts are expressive of wider relationships of fidelity, commitment, and respect, which remain open to the “child” in the form of the vulnerable outsider.

– Tina Beattie
Quoted in "A Modus Vivendi? – Sex, Marriage and the Church"
January 14, 2012

NOTE: For Francis DeBernardo's excellent summary of this multi-authored Commonweal article, click here. Also, I added the links to the above quote. They do not appear in the original version.

Recommended Off-site Link:
Tina Beattie's Personal Website

See also the previous Wild Reed post:
Making Love, Giving Life
The Many Manifestations of God's Loving Embrace
A "Fruit" Reflects Upon the Meaning of "Fruitfulness"
Relationship: The Crucial Factor in Sexual Morality
The Non-Negotiables of Human Sex
Robert McClory on Humanae Vitae
Sex as Mystery, Sex as Light (Part 1)
Sex as Mystery, Sex as Light (Part 2)
Human Sex: Weird and Silly, Messy and Sublime
A "Truly Queer Theory" on Sex
A Wise and Thoughtful Study of Sexual Ethics
Getting It Right
Marriage: "Part of What is Best in Human Nature"
Quote of the Day – April 11, 2011
Beyond the Hierarchy: The Blossoming of Liberating Catholic Insights on Sexuality (Part 1)
Beyond the Hierarchy (Part 2)
Beyond the Hierarchy (Part 3)

Beyond the Hierarchy (Part 4)

Beyond the Hierarchy (Part 5)

1 comment:

William D. Lindsey said...

Thanks for this quote, Michael. It's so sane and theologically perceptive (and so mainstream and non-radical).

And so I wonder how those who want to keep reducing the analysis of human sexuality to genital acts can't see these obvious and compelling points?