David Carrington, Sannat
Condemnation of homosexuality
There has been a great deal of comment in the press recently over Pope Benedict's (and, by implication, the Church's) supposed condemnation of homosexual men and women. But, to my mind there is no desire to persecute this minority as some have claimed. If a person is born to a life which does not enable them to have satisfactory sexual relations with a member of the opposite gender this should not be regarded as unnatural.
However, what is unnatural is the desire to undertake erotic activity with members of the same sex since, ultimately, this is utterly futile and can only lead to frustration and often despair, not happiness. This is what the Church cannot condone. Is it wrong for two men to "love" each other? It seems to me that there is a great deal of confusion over what people are and, also, the meaning of "love". Unfortunately we have only one word in English to describe what is, actually, a multi-faceted concept.
The Greeks, for instance, have four words to describe the idea of love. Eros is the lowest of these. It describes passionate love, which is necessary if there is to be an issue: primarily (but not only) new physical life. The highest is agape, or love of God, creation and mankind (Mother Theresa would be an example here). In between there is storge, or the love that members of a family have for each other and philia, or love e.g. for friends, or, maybe, concepts - such as philosophy, or love of truth.
The fact that two men, or women, might have "love" for each other is therefore not wrong. The fact that they might choose to live together, as friends, out of a need for companionship is, similarly, not wrong (the monasteries would be closed if it were otherwise). But then to go on and ape the preserve of a married couple is not right.
It is not what you are that you should worry about - only what you do.
Popular Stories
In Discussion
23 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Joe Zammit
Jan 15th 2009, 17:50
In Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. Here you have a clear condemnation by God of homosexual acts. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People of God, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion. So here it is clear that homosexual acts are condemned by God and no one can love God if he indulges in homosexual acts. Notwithstanding this, God and his Christian Catholic Church love homosexuals and are ready to help them to come out of their sinful and dirty life. This conversion is possible.
Joe Xuereb
Jan 15th 2009, 00:05
The likes of Joe Zammit and David Carrington (he who famously told me to worry not about who I am but about what I do and trying to impress with pseudo greek intellectualism) felt comfortable in the past with the old order of homosexuals. But no more. There they are behind their PCs, unflustered in their outrageous attacks on homosexual people. Their problem now is that they can not handle a man, in real life, looking them straight in the eye and, unflinchingly and calmly declaring himself a homosexual. They would lose it within seconds. And I calmly would say, 'come, let us go and have a coffee and we can talk, generally, like two human beings, with differences, but ultimately, in our frailty sharing this thing called the human condition. However, I suspect they would have none of it. One can only reach out so far.
Joe Xuereb
Jan 14th 2009, 23:47
Until fairly recently, homosexuals lived in the shadows, grabbing at the least bit of homosexual affirmation they could, in secret and in fear. Society, ever ready to scapegoat the perceived weak. Perceived because, bearing the hallmark of the terminally pathetic, society invented a recognisable stereotype to make it easy to identify and persecute homosexuals. Then came the Gay Liberation Front in the late 60s and seventies. Stonewall happened. (look up Stonewall on WWW). When the police in New York harassed homosexual men. And homosexual men, untypical till then, fought back. The rest is history. Likewildfire, the militancy took off. Societies still need scapegoats of course. But now the 'homosexual problem' was not so tractable as it was once thought. Many governments wised up and legalised (or at any rate decriminalised) what had been illegal. The Church of course does not budge. The people who yesteryear scapegoated homosexual, with full backing of the Church, have now changed tactics. They quote chapter and verse to villify but without much clout. But ever heavily invested, they villify some more. And yet the Church cannot change. It has set itself up to fail. Not my problem.
Joe Zammit
Jan 14th 2009, 17:41
Homosexual acts, i.e., sexual acts between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, are not an expression of love but are dirty acts of lust. They are unnatural. They are sterile. They debase the perpetrator. They lower the offender to the level of animals. They are grievous sins. They place the sinner on the way to hell. They please only the devil. They render the sinner slave to his lust and passions. How peaceful and joyful are those homosexuals who have overcome their sinful life and are pleasing God! They tell you, yes, it is possible to overcome homosexuality because homosexuality is not natural but just a tendency that can be overcome by God's grace.
Dr Antoine Spiteri
Jan 13th 2009, 23:56
JZ says "What God and the Church condemn is indulging in homosexual acts which are grievous sins that separate the offender from God and put him on the way to hell"
If heaven is governed by a vengeful god & filled with intolerant souls then I would rather reign in hell. That said, it's interesting to know that at least JZ would know the sentiments of god... is this through direct contact of some kind, I wonder?
JZ, DC, have you really read the bible, ever? I did, its busting with cognitive dissonance, infanticide ordered by god and bloodshed. Your god wrote this?
And why is it that the vatican is so hung up on this gay thing, anyway? Seriously, the pope seems to be almost unable to grab a headline unless he pulls the gay card, the man is obsessed by this! Is gayness bound to bring down the catholic church, maybe he thinks the earth will fall because there are gays in it... maybe its more personal? I feel a bit honoured that one of the world's most powerful institutions trembles at my mere existence!
Stefan Aquilina
Jan 13th 2009, 19:49
Mr Carrington,
Leave Benedict out of this equation. Humans are able to love each other and naturally so have sex not only to
procreate but for their enjoyment and personal fullfilment, remember the Greeks had their Eros and their Agape. I`m one
of those guys who does it safe with men, I certainly can`t see myself doing it with mother Theresa, God has blessed her
soul.
Stefan Aquilina
Joe Zammit
Jan 13th 2009, 17:45
Sticking to the letter under discussion I would like to affirm that the Pope has never condemned homosexuals. In his speech to members of the Roman Curia on December 22, 2008, the Pope said that protecting nature is an essential mission of the Catholic Church. But this is no more important than protecting the nature of the person.
The Pope continued that "Given that faith in the Creator is an essential element of the Christian creed, the Church cannot and should not limit itself to transmitting to the faithful only the message of salvation. It also has a responsibility with creation, and it has to fulfil this responsibility in public."
But, the Pope said, to "defend the earth, water, air, as gifts of the creation that belongs to all of us, the Church must also protect the human being from his own destruction."
"It is necessary that there be something such as an ecology of man, understood in the proper manner," he said.
This human ecology, he affirmed, is based on respecting the nature of the person, and the two genders of masculine and feminine.
Joe Xuereb
Jan 13th 2009, 11:38
So heterosexual love-making, unselfish and lacking lust (lacklustre, more like) is suppoesed to have only creation as an aim. Hence (proof), the Church's condemnation of condoms. Not a very happy state for sure. Certainly, no ecstatic abandonment of the senses. The pseudos here, religious and intellectual, have described homosexual congress as sterile (thank goodness for that), joyless, unsatisfactory, not pleasureable. I have had half a century's experpience of 'homosexual congress' and I could not begin to start to describe exactly the sensations afforded by the sexual act, of whatever kind. It is the nature of the best.
A bit of spoo-feeding will not go amiss here. I can wax lyrical about spaghetti bolognese. But describing the taste will get us nowhere. You have to taste it yourself. Except of course it is pointless to try and find out what homosexuality feels like if your orientation dictates otherwise. So you'll never know the joys (or despair, why not) of homosexual congress. Like I will never know the breeding processes. No sweat!! Yyou see David, Greek quotes pseudo-intellectual gobbledegook does not stand up to scrutiny after all. And Joe Zammit, I think it's time you got down to some filthy business, cont./
Nick Cachia
Jan 13th 2009, 00:17
Interesting argument, however, even heterosexual couples engage in 'futile' but nonetheless pleasurable sexual activities. Any comments on this? since most arguments on what is right and wrong revolve on homosexual acts.
Dr Antoine Spiteri
Jan 13th 2009, 00:01
Clearly this Mr "Carrington" has no concept of either homosexuality or love... and amidst attempting to clarify definitions, he shows further flagrant disregard for what "aping" really means... 'nough said me-thinks
Marco Ellul
Jan 12th 2009, 16:56
@ David Carrington: 'What is unnatural is the desire to undertake erotic activity with members of the same sex since, ultimately, this is utterly futile and can only lead to frustration and often despair, not happiness. This is what the Church cannot condone.'
1. It is not unnatural to desire a member of the same sex. How do you know it is? Just because, maybe, you are not in that situation? I know of an innumerable number of married men who have found out to their misfortune that they had made a mistake into allowing themselves to get married.
If you are in it, believe me, you find it extremely natural.
2. If you are not in it, how come you put yourself as judge over what is or what is not 'love'? No wonder you follow the gay-bashing line of the Church, since you dare put yourself as judge yourself, over people's feelings which you have no idea what they are about.
3. 'to go on and ape the preserve of a married couple is not right.' Well, it depends what you mean by 'married couple'. I am certainly not impressed by what many married couples are and do.
Joe Zammit
Jan 12th 2009, 16:31
God and the Catholic Church love all men, including homosexuals. What God and the Church condemn is indulging in homosexual acts which are grievous sins that separate the offender from God and put him on the way to hell. There is always the possibility of conversion and repentance as many have done. Love is required by all of us but love does not necessarily mean to fall to sexual acts. That is only intended by God for married couples, i.e., a marriage between a man and a woman who lovingly co-operate with him in the work of creation.
P Aquilina
Jan 12th 2009, 15:55
What I do hurts no one,it therefore follows that the State should allow me the freedom to do as I want and that includes the right to love freely whomsoever I wish. As it is at the moment not only the Church (a private institution)condemns but the State follows its bidding. That cannot be right.
As a Citizen I am entitled to exactly the same rights as other fellow Citizens without prejudice.
MR johnson
Jan 12th 2009, 15:44
It about time some people , opened their minds , to the fact that homosexuality is not a new fashion , or a illness !!! or a choice !!!!!!!!!!
Joe Xuereb (London UK)
Jan 12th 2009, 12:15
David Carrington, what on earth makes you think I would worry about who I am and what I do. Anymore than what you are and do (you do do something, sometimes, don't you
CarringtonI. As my old philosophy teacher used to tell us, pseudo, particularly of the intellectual type, is just hot air, a pollutant of the atmosphere.
P.Graham
Jan 12th 2009, 12:09
As much as I agree that Pope Benedict's speech was not intended to cause condemnation of Homosexuality, I also believe that much has been made of his words in a deliberate attempt to cause condemnation.
The church has every right to take this view, (Benedict's speech) in my opinion and though it may not be my opinion I respect everyone's right to form and give and educated opinion.
Unfortunately I believe that the fall out of this "message" however, has not worked well for the Catholic Church simply because there is so much going on in this World we live in right now that homosexuality and choice of partners/relationships come (or should) way down the list.
What is natural to one person may not be natural to another. The common denominator however is "love".
Not every heterosexual couple marries specifically to go forth an procreate but may enjoy the "futility" of eroticism. Not every parent becomes a parent, naturally, but the love that exists between parent and child is very natural no matter how that child is introduced to the "family".
A loving demonstrative relationship grows from nurturing the seeds given, not from a heterosexual manual.
Daniel Bartolo
Jan 12th 2009, 11:37
How can you say that undertaking erotic activity with members of the same sex is totally futile and will ultimately lead to despair? Have you tried it yourself in order to make such a statement? What would you say to two men or women who undertake this activity within a faithful, committed and longterm (even lifelong in many cases) relationship? Even if there is just one couple like this, it proves you completely wrong. And then you contradict yourself by stating that the aim of erotic love is not only to bring about new life. And what about lowest and highest forms of love? Seems like you really have confused thoughts and feelings about the whole issue. Why make life misery to those who choose a partner of their own sex, and why not recognise and celebrate their happiness? Do you really believe that by officially recognising their relationship you are taking someone's rights away or making someone suffer? Recognising same sex unions will not in anyway jeopardise your marriage if you choose to have one, but it will make life easier and happier to a minority of people.
C Attard
Jan 12th 2009, 11:14
Dear Mr. Carrington,
you can rest assured that when I "love" my boyfriend, I neither feel that the act is futile, nor does it induce in me any kind of despair... on the contrary, I thoroughly enjoy it!
As for what a gay couple is or is not supposed to do in terms of living arrangements, I think we can make that decision for ourselves, thank you very much. And to put your concluding sentence to practice, how about YOU worry about what YOU do for a change, instead of worrying about what everybody else does in the privacy of their bedrooms? ;-)
Robert Callus
Jan 12th 2009, 11:12
THis is a very incongruent argument. 'I accept you for what you are unless you behave as you are???
There are many different types of love - towards parents, friends, god, partner etc. Most do not involve sex.
However if one talks about intimate love in a relationship, it is very likely (and healthy) that sex is part of the equation, be it with someone of the same sex or someone of the opposite sex
Joe Xuereb (London UK)
Jan 12th 2009, 10:27
Mr. Carrington. And platitudes will get you nowhere. One can intellectualise the concept of love but in the end, one's true colours emerge. As I have said in some detail on these pages marriage is nothing more than a mere social construct, a convenience. As such, why would any self-respecting homosexual want to emulate such a shambolic setup. As for homosexual erotic acts (or whatever) lacking any happiness, joy, again whatever, you are not in a position to know if you are not of the homosexual persuasion. Anymore than I could say and was lyrical on the pleasureable act between a man and a woman. You see David, sex is not like a recipe, a dish.....here try it, you might like it. Sex and its orientation is not so accommodating. So by intellectualising this thing we call love you have played yourself into a right corner. The Greeks did indeed have a word for it. And you, David, got embroiled. And sadly, when this intellectualising takes hold, in the end there is nothing left but a vacuum.
John Zammit
Jan 12th 2009, 10:09
I suggest that the Pope's first encylical letter Dues Caritas Est is given the popularity that it deserves so that people become well informed of the totality of the word 'love' which I think you have well exposed in a succint way. Congratulations.
Maria Gauci
Jan 12th 2009, 09:37
Why is a relationship with a same-sex person "utterly futile and can only lead to frustration and often despair, not happiness"? This is news...unless Mr. Carrington is basing this on personal experience which is obviously very subjective.
“It is not what you are that you should worry about - only what you do”. And who is to decide which bit of what people do should they be worried about?
Aldo Gatt
Jan 12th 2009, 09:30
Mr Carrington, I am glad you do all the worrying for us. In the meantime, we can carry on with more important things like living and loving.