DOMA and Being a Christian

RingOn Wednesday June 26, 2013 the United States Supreme Court struck down, as unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman for the purposes of federal benefits. Under DOMA, same-sex marriages performed in states where same-sex marriage is legal were not recognized by the federal government. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops supported DOMA and called the Supreme Court decision “…a tragic day for marriage and our nation.”

How do I feel about this as a Catholic? I have a lot of trouble with it. As I’ve been on my journey back to the faith, I have delved into the Catholic Catechism, I have read about the lives and devotions of the Saints, I have witnessed the love of Christ in the tireless and fearless work of missionaries around the world. I know that I have barely scratched the surface of Christianity, but I cannot help but find great inconsistency between the Church’s message of love and the bishop’s adamant opposition to the union of two people of the same gender. Furthermore, to call the Supreme court decision on DOMA (and the decision not to decide on California’s Proposition 8), “tragic” is to elevate homosexuality to the same level of unholiness as abortion, rape, torture, abandonment of the poor, denial of healthcare to the sick, and the denial of human rights to immigrants. If, for the sake of argument, homosexuality is a sin, I would say it ranks rather low on the list of harmful consequences.

In the Mass readings for this coming Sunday, St. Paul reminds the Galatians “…the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal. 5:14) He did not add “unless your neighbor is gay.” The extreme rhetoric used by the bishops to denigrate the love between two people of the same sex will only serve to alienate a full ten percent of God’s children from the love offered to everyone else by the Church. The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us:

In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective “perfections” of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband. (CCC 370)

The first half of that paragraph gives us reason to accept the love of two people of the same sex. The second part gives us reason to validate opposite-sex relationships exclusively. I have yet to hear this contradiction addressed. In order for an act to be a sin, the one committing the sin must be fully aware that the act is wrong. The “imperfect” state of homosexual unions presupposes that homosexuality is a moral, conscious, choice on the part of the homosexual. Science has proven this notion to be false. The Catholic Church has long upheld the validity of scientific discipline. The Church willingly accepts scientific theories on the evolution of man and the origins of the universe as being in harmony with the Christian belief in God as supreme creator. When science and scripture apparently contradict, the common truth is always found. For example the theory of evolution is compatible with the story of the fall of man in Genesis when you consider the “biting of the apple” to be a symbol of man’s decision to trust in himself rather than in God. The moment the first homo sapien had the notion that he did not need God to survive, he conferred on all his descendants the taint of original sin. One might argue that homosexual activity is a moral, conscious choice. But so is heterosexual activity. Any sexual activity outside of marriage is sinful because sex is the deepest and most profound physical expression of love between two people. If the supreme act of love is performed in the absence of the irrevocable commitments made in the sacrament of marriage, then the act constitutes a lie. Nonetheless, temptations to heterosexual activity, inside or outside of marriage, are considered natural. Temptations to homosexual activity are deemed by the Church to be unnatural under any circumstance, by virtue of the fact that such activity cannot lead to procreation, which is God’s ultimate intention for the gift of sexual love. This leads to the often asked and, as yet, unsatisfactorily answered questions,”Why are infertile heterosexual couples allowed to marry? Why is intercourse between men and women who have no hope of conceiving not considered sinful? Why is sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who purposely time their activity to lessen the possibility of conception no longer considered sinful?” These are tired old arguments, but I have yet to hear good answers to them.

This brings me to the biggest question on my mind: Why does God continue to create homosexuals? Their existence defies all principles of natural selection. Whether or not you believe that evolution is a natural process guided by God, homosexuality should have been bred out of the species thousands of years ago. They are far less inclined to reproduce and the prejudices against them by the other ninety percent of humanity has given them a pretty hefty survival disadvantage. Yet they continue to comprise roughly the same percentage of the population generation after generation. Why would God continue to create people condemned to a life of mandatory celibacy? Even the celibacy of the priesthood is a voluntary discipline.

One can point to scriptural passages that clearly refute the validity of homosexual love in the same way devout people of the past pointed to scripture to justify slavery, the spiritual inferiority of Jews, and the “evil” implications of being left-handed. In the last three instances, the Church’s interpretation of those passages evolved as its understanding of God’s world grew. I believe that the teaching on homosexuality has room to evolve. I pray that the Holy Spirit open the heart of the Church I love and enable it to love and embrace all of God’s children so that no one is given reason to avert their eyes from the Way, the Truth, and the Life that is Jesus Christ.

Have a Blessed Week!

1 John 4:7-8



Filed under Formation

2 responses to “DOMA and Being a Christian

  1. I do not endorse Catholicism. Nor do i endorse or condone homosexuality. I do, however, endorse the Bibe and what it teaches. I can not say, nor will I say, you are in any manner correct in opposing the Catholic Church for it’s position opposing homosexuality. Christ says to “love the sinner, but to hate the sin.”

  2. Maggie

    Just a couple of points in a loving way because you know I love you.. Point 1. It doesnt’ matter if homosexuals are that way from birth. It doesn’t change anything. We do not allow everyone to “love” (more on love in a minute) whoever they want. We do not allow mothers and sons’ to marry, we do not allow brothers to marry. Under your supposition of “two poeple that love each other” this should be covered and allowed. We don’t allow
    Point 2. Homosexuallity is a more difficult life that heterosexual I will give you that but life is not fair and we cannot make it fair for eveyone. Everyone doesn’t get the same deal as every other person. So we can’t legislate complete fairness. Point 3. If you ask why does God create homosexuals then I guess you could also ask why God creates some people to be attracked to children. It’s an attraction they say they can’t learn to stop. Its always there and they can only choose to not act on it. I am not comparing the seriousness of pedohilia with homosexual marriage because the child-adult difference but I am complaring the “I was made this way” as a reason that it has to be sanctioned. Point 4. If gay marriage becomes the law of the land them I, who hold to my faithful values, values held for thousands of years. Not a new fangled religion that I just made up for the tax break and opened a store front in a shopping center. Then I, who hold to my faith, become a bigot. I will be ridiculed for not saying I agree. In holding to my beliefs which are supposed to be protected in America, I will be forced to participate in that which I hold as against my religion. If I am an adoption agency for example (you can’t say it won’t happen becauce it already has) I will have to comply with the law of the land. I will have to adopt to gay couples even though I believe it’s wrong. There has to be room for the two opposing opinions to co-exists or my freedom is being infringed. I don’t see anyone talking about how the two opposing ideas would co-exist without someone suing me because I won’t adopt to a gay couple. Adoption is just one example where this would happen. Point 5. Slavery was not justified by the Catholic church it was tolerated because it was bigger than the church. It was a large dependant econmy that couldn’t be changed overnight. But all those otehr things are going down a different tangent so it doesn’t really apply to this. It’s just saying because something bad was done once it could be again. yeah it could be but that’s anothr topic. Point 6. Yes sex outside of marriage is a sin and detrimental to your sanctity just like all sin. Yes homosexual activity is considered “unnatural” because you can look at the physiology of a male and female and you know how they are “meant” to fit together in a certain way. You can see the mechanics of it are meant to fit together in a certain way, right? You can force it another but that’s not what the directions would say if humans came with directions. The procreative way. There are some presentations on DOMA at St. james I saw, probably otehr churches too. THere you could ask the hard questions that I can’t answer.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s