tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post3901447391259807103..comments2024-03-23T12:05:23.537-05:00Comments on The Wild Reed: Compassion, Christian Community, and HomosexualityMichael J. Baylyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-89659770844435721042008-06-01T17:35:00.000-05:002008-06-01T17:35:00.000-05:00Gay Species,It's true that the absence of artifici...Gay Species,<BR/><BR/>It's true that the absence of artificial contraceptives does not guarantee the presence of conjugal love, but the <B>use</B> of such contraceptives excludes the possibility of a full, integral expression of conjugal love in which mind, heart and body are all expressing the same thing: total self-donation. Artificial contraceptives express a contradiction to the conjugal act -- a withholding, rather than a giving... conjugal bulimia, if you will.<BR/><BR/>Natural Family Planning (NFP) can prevent conception, but it does so by respecting the natural cycle of the woman's fertility (rather than violating/frustrating it). It's true that couples could use NFP in a selfish way (e.g. always avoiding conjugal union during fertile periods as a way to avoid having children altogether), but that's not the fault of NFP, but the couples themselves. Spouses practicing NFP report that the whole practice of measuring the woman's cycle actually stimulates discussion/improves communication and also gives them a greater appreciation for God's design. Respecting the natural cycles of fertility is also, for the both spouses, a school of sacrifice/self-denial... an important dimension of human love.<BR/><BR/>Many couples use NFP in order to conceive. No one uses condoms for this purpose. Condoms are always a way to avoid the procreative possibility, to exclude God's creative potential from the conjugal act.<BR/><BR/>With condoms, there's no need to consider cycles of fertility. It's pleasure on demand, with no sacrifices needed. It's a school of selfishness and represents a cheapening/falsification of the sexual act. Condoms allows us to tell lies with our bodies. NFP teaches us to tell the truth with our bodies; sometimes the truth is that we're not ready for the possibility of a child, so we express that truth by abstinence.<BR/><BR/><EM>Love-making and baby-making are not essentially connected</EM><BR/><BR/>Well, that view is the result of a contraceptive culture. It's a sentimental view of sex... which is essentially what is expressed by pornography: Sex with no hard edges/consequences. (see <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Mystery-Manners-Occasional-Flannery-OConnor/dp/0374508046" REL="nofollow">Flannery O'Connor</A> for more discussion of the sentimentality of porn)CDEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442791960391683444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-72390380337417636682008-06-01T13:38:00.000-05:002008-06-01T13:38:00.000-05:00Clayton,Your observations about contraception serv...Clayton,<BR/><BR/>Your observations about contraception serving to "humanize" love, rather than fetish it, is intellectually romantic, but emotionally bankrupt. Attitudes are framed in the mind, not by IUDs, prophylactics, and the Pill. Treating "partners" with disdain in the course of "love-making" occurs with or without contraception. Love-making and baby-making are not essentially connected, although it has been known to occur.<BR/><BR/>Besides, how is NFP not contraception? Messrs Boyle, Grizes, and Finnis insist NFP is birth control, and they are right, but approve the church's two-face, because the people require it. And how does NFP differ from condoms? Oh, the Pope permits one, and decries the other. Litmus paper is so much more natural than lambskin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-16902702785520995622008-05-30T20:12:00.000-05:002008-05-30T20:12:00.000-05:00The Church, by its myopia of "wedge" issues, like ...<EM>The Church, by its myopia of "wedge" issues, like contraception, homophilia, liberalism, has made humans into commodities it tries to regulate like an automotive production line. Don't think. Don't breathe. Just obey.</EM><BR/><BR/>I understand that some interpret the Church's teaching this way.<BR/><BR/>But I think it is a misinterpretation and even the opposite of the actual case.<BR/><BR/>The Church's teaching on contraception, at its core, is about preserving the dignity of the woman and ensuring that her full dignity -- fertility and all -- is respected. Contraception allows the man to dehumanize the woman and to <EM>use</EM> her as a sexual commodity without consequence. "The opposite of love is not hate, but <EM>use</EM>," wrote John Paul II. The teaching on contraception is at the service of authentic freedom for women, and a full appreciation of her dignity as a person.<BR/><BR/>I'm not exactly sure what the Gay Species means by "homophilia", or how it is distinct from homogenital relationships. I can understand how the Church's stance against homogenital relations could be seen as a restriction of human freedom. But looked at from another point-of-view, it is actually an appeal to human freedom to make a different use of <EM>eros</EM> by putting it in the service of a generous and chaste love. The Church's positive appeal to human freedom and love desperately needs to be articulated in a way that is both faithful to the Gospel and an authentic response to situation of same-sex attracted men and women. "Everyone has been given an existence and a love," wrote the young Karol Wojtyla in one of his plays. "The only question is: how to build a sensible structure from it?"CDEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01442791960391683444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-9813397444302208732008-05-30T14:53:00.000-05:002008-05-30T14:53:00.000-05:00I agree with Thom. It seems like only yesterday th...I agree with Thom. It seems like only yesterday this kind of commonsense approach of integrating one's sexuality and spiritualism was found in Catholic literature. Alas, the "occasion of sin" and "intrinsically disordered" from Augustine's ascetism seems to have tainted the Roman perspective to embrace the Church's homophobia documented over 20 centuries in Louis Crompton's "Homosexuality & Civilization." Rather than being a "leaven" and a "light" of compassion, of gentle persuasion, of loving the person one sees as evidence of the love of god one does not see, the sheep need dividing from the goats, and I chose to go with the goats.<BR/><BR/>Liam raises an excellent observation about "stylized" images, which, unfortunately, is far more pervasive throughout our commercialized and commodified society than ever. Gadgetry. Music Videos. Online Hook ups. Too many people, straight, gay, bi, and trans, have accepted the "humans are products" like toilet paper, computers, and Burger King's Whopper -- "make that a double, with mayo, mustard, hold the onions, to go," and then dispose of when done. But, in all fairness to Liam, the Church, by its myopia of "wedge" issues, like contraception, homophilia, liberalism, has made humans into commodities it tries to regulate like an automotive production line. Don't think. Don't breathe. Just obey.<BR/><BR/>You might find my ruminations under "tagged" of interest, particularly the L.A. Corral Club experience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-70739324423886156262008-05-30T14:10:00.000-05:002008-05-30T14:10:00.000-05:00Sorry to interrupt the love fest, but it occurs to...Sorry to interrupt the love fest, but it occurs to me to ask what undoubtedly will be a very unpopular question: Why do almost all the images of stylized same sex couples here in recent times look so like Ambercrombie & Fitch (plus 15 years) in their telegenicity?<BR/><BR/>Our culture is so oppressive in its emphasis on telegenicity, and it many times it seems even more so in some gay male subcommunities. (Oh, please spare the paeans to the cult of physical beauty if you are at all tempted to venture any - by now, they are banal.) These images do not portray reality but fantasy of what we'd prefer people on average to look like. It's a kind of violence to the truth - in cartoon form. And it contributes mightily to how many people feel attached to the fantasy movies in their heads rather than the reality God actually puts before them.<BR/><BR/>Think about this: could a movie like movie "Fame" (1980 original, please) be produced with the same look today? No way, no how. Those extras would all be screened to be telegenic (or at least nothing less than mildly attractive - mildly attractive is what passes for ugly in visual images today unless one is actually trying to portray something as ugly). <BR/><BR/>And that is very sad. It's a miracle that film got made with the cast it had.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-48857762791386314702008-05-29T23:28:00.000-05:002008-05-29T23:28:00.000-05:00Hi Thom,Thanks, as always, for stopping by and sha...Hi Thom,<BR/><BR/>Thanks, as always, for stopping by and sharing your thoughts.<BR/><BR/>I'm glad you find the thoughts and words of the Whiteheads inspiring. That there are folks like them out there who are willing and gifted to share such wise and compassionate thoughts keeps me hopeful.<BR/><BR/>Peace,<BR/><BR/>MichaelMichael J. Baylyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03087458490602152648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27612445.post-60505478310716041282008-05-29T22:52:00.000-05:002008-05-29T22:52:00.000-05:00What a thoughtful, inspired treatment of the subje...What a thoughtful, inspired treatment of the subject. I especially like how they connect it with Christian responsibility. <BR/><BR/>Thanks!Tchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13388784325608457371noreply@blogger.com