Conservatism reborn in twisted sisterhood
Follow Patheos Catholic:
I have a post over at AmCon’s group blog.
Hi, Eve–you wrote: “From the Church, they hear only a “No.” And you can’t have a vocation of not-gay-marrying and not-having-sex. You can’t have a vocation of No.”
I can’t help but disagree with this assessment of a vocation of “no”. It’s not just gay folks who have a vocation of “no”, of “not-marrying” and “not-having-sex.” That merely describes the kind of chastity the Church teaches *all* the faithful, outside of marriage. And the Church doesn’t say gay people can’t get married–it just says marriage can’t be *re-defined*. I mean, “straight” people don’t “choose” to be straight either, right? But they too are called to a “celibacy” they don’t necessarily choose for themselves when they are not married…so in that sense the priestly celibacy message applies to *all* Catholic teens, not just gays.
I’d agree, of course, that young people struggling with sexual identity–whether gay or straight–would benefit from the kind of support that addresses their specific situations, but I think it presents a false dichotomy to imply that the fundamental vocation of the Christian which you describe (7th paragraph) is not being shared with *all* students in such an educational setting.
Given that Catholic teaching identifies “homosexual inclinations” as ” objectively disordered”, it would seem to me to be a bit out of place to move in a direction that does not adequately “contextualize” the “disorder” of those inclinations so as to help the teen frame their experiences guided by Catholic teaching. Is this what a “Catholic” version of a GSA would do?
God bless you,
Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner
Follow Patheos on
Copyright 2008-2013, Patheos. All rights reserved.