The Tablet Blog

Why I oppose the Church on gay marriage

I am a married Catholic who takes my faith and the sacraments very seriously. Yet, when the Archbishop of Westminster recently invited us to sign the petition against gay marriage, I not only declined, but immediately signed a petition in favour. Why can I not support the Church on this issue?

As a cradle Catholic it never crossed my mind to question the Church's teaching on same-sex relationships - that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered' and gay people are called to chastity. It was a shock, on my first day at university, to be exhorted by the flamboyant Gay and Lesbian Society member to 'Come out, come out, wherever you are'.

It took a training session at a counselling project to change my views completely. Two members of Gay and Lesbian Soc were invited to share their stories with us so that we could understand how being gay might affect students. They told us how they knew they were gay growing up, but the bombardment of messages that heterosexuality was 'normal' made them feel like outsiders. I'd just spent six months living in a L'Arche community supporting people with learning disabilities, a group of people often discriminated against. I realised that gay people were being equally discriminated against.

My friends who are actively gay say their sexuality is intrinsic to who they are. They are good, loving people in faithful relationships and I cannot understand how expressing their innate sexuality in a loving relationship can be considered a sin.

Over the last 30 years I'm glad to see societal attitudes have changed towards gay people: a person's sexuality is no longer a bar to being a pop star, an actor, a politician, or even Poet Laureate.

But there is still one area of life where people in same sex relationships get a raw deal - they aren't allowed to marry. I have always found it deeply upsetting that gay friends, in long term faithful relationships, cannot stand up in church and make their sacramental commitment to each other in front of God, friends and family, as I was able to do. And I believe the Church's continued stance on gay marriage is wrong, cruel and unjust.

One justification for the Church's position is that homosexual acts are condemned in Leviticus and by St Paul. But I can't find any evidence that Jesus said anything about same-sex relationships. Secondly, Leviticus also promotes harsh dietary laws which we wouldn't dream of following today, and Paul appears to be in favour of slavery. If the Church can change on these issues, why not on same-sex relationships?

Another argument is that sacramental marriage is for procreation alone. Well if that's the case, where does this leave all the heterosexual people who can't have children?

Many commentators suggest gay marriage undermines traditional marriage. Given that my marriage is based on a promise made between my husband and me, I fail to see how anybody else, other than us, could ruin it.

The final argument I've heard is that marriage has always been for heterosexuals. Yale Professor John Boswell has uncovered over 70 records of rituals celebrating same sex unions in local Christian churches between the 8th and 18th centuries.

I believe the Catholic Church has a responsibility to speak out on issues that affect the whole of society. And I'd support the Archbishop in most things. But, at a time of austerity cuts, destruction of welfare and health, endless war in Afghanistan, I find it disheartening that of all political messages to promote, the Catholic Church is choosing to focus on one that makes us look like bigots. 

Virginia Moffatt is a lay Catholic in the diocese of Birmingham.

John, sexuality is intrinsic to who people are, not because of 'habit', 'addiction' or 'self-gratification'... But because it is how we relate through companionship, friendship, trust, solidarity and love. You are reducing sexuality to acts, and forgetting the fundamental purpose of sexuality, which is how we relate to a significant other, in a life-long companionship, friendship and love. The gender of a couple does not define whether their relationship is righteous or not. Gender doesn't automatically make a relationship one of lust and not love. Love defines a relationship - not gender.

Djair. And girl. Don't forget the girls.

Some homosexuals might take their way of expressing the sexual instinct as intrinsic to who they are. Yet that is only because of acting it out and the addiction of habit, gratification and frustration. At one time in my life I stupidly acted it out myself. Children need to be raised in a family with a permanent commitment that involve a male and female. It is necessary for healthy development and sexual modelling. Homosexual realtionships and heterosexual are different. Not the same. This is not a case of religion but rather the physical, psychological, cultural reality. For thousands of years this truth has been known. The government has no role to play as it has NO authority in redefining marriage and its interference in marriage dates from the 1830's when parliament usurped an authority in this area. Parliament has no authority when it comes to marriage. The State is in many areas causing confusion and social chaos.

Hardingley: Catholic teaching provides two entirely separate theologies of sexuality for gay and straight people. For straight people, sexuality is a gift from a good God rooted in the goodness of Creation. For gays and lesbians, sexuality is a burden from an indifferent God to test us, rooted in the experience of the Cross. There is no other instance of two contradictory theologies set up for separate groups on such a fundamental aspect of life. How long can such a house of cards stand? This contradiction is not just a hole in the seamless garment, it is two entirely different garments.

Nobody mentions holiness. The Church has the task of helping its members to become holy. The gay world has never been conducive to the pursuit of holiness, and gay people know this (younger ones are in the process of finding out.) The Church's teaching seems harsh in today's liberal eyes but it has only one purpose - to encourage every member to seek first the kingdom of heaven. OK, it's not easy for a gay dude to remain a faithful Catholic. It's really not! But with prayer and the sacraments he can do it. Those who seek the friendship of Christ are heroic in their commitment and on their way to sainthood. They know that In spiritual terms, it's a matter of life and death.

'for the believer, explanation is not needed; ...' That is not a believer. That is a very lazy person who relies on others to do her/his thinking. God gave us a mind and a conscience for good reason.

LOOK AROUND YOU Just try to recount the number of times you have heard this hideous criticism of the Catholic Church. ' I am a catholic... BUT...' Aye there's the rub This is why our Church is suffering ... attacks from within. 'for the believer, explanation is not needed; for the non faithful, explanation is IMPOSSIBLE.

Virginia's article only confirms what another Roman Catholic, Dom Laurence Freeman, said in one of his open letters to the Community of Christian Meditation a couples of years ago, on the subject of monogamous, committed Gay relationships, as a sign of God's Love at work in our world. He was speaking of being present at the heterosexual Marriage of a woman, whose sister, a partnered Lesbian, walked behind the bride and groom with her female partner. It seemed to Dom Laurence, to be perfectly wholesome and good! The Catholic Church has made mistakes before - on other issues. Is it not possible that denying the Sacrament of Holy Marriage to a committed, life-long partnership of two same-sex persons could be a profound mistaken misunderstanding - given the fact that homosexuality is not a chosen sexual orientation, but a normal variant of the given human condition? Thank you, Virginia, for being brave enough to challenge the Church on an issue that has long blighted the lives of too many young gay people. Thank you, too, to the Tablet for publishing this much-needed corrective to an out-dated view of what Love and Marriage are really all about - not necessarily the propagation of Children, but maybe paving the way to an alternative means of nurturing them in a loving partnered relationship..

Hi again Jim, If I understand what you have said correctly, then if I am right all that you ask for is provided in the UK currently by what is called civil partnerships. As the article was referring to a letter read out in the UK I was answering within the context of the UK. I do not know enough about the USA to comment on the link you have posted.

Kieran. The point is that my partner of 40 years and I do NOT want marriage from this or any other church. It would at best be a grudging 'gift' to us. What we want is the societal recognition of our relationship that results (at least in the US where we live) in equal access to all financial, contractual, inheritance, social security and countless other benefits that automatically come with a marriage. According to the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 1,138 statutory provisions in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges. The full list is outlined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States That is why we want MARRIAGE, not civil unions which do not have applicability in all 50 U.S. states.

God bless the teenage boy. God made you as you are. He loves you as you are.

I am astounded by the comment made by John (comment 31) His patronising tone and his total lack of understanding and empathy for Gay people is why the church is dying and the young are turning their backs on it. WHY DO I NEED HELP??? I am 17 (almost) and I know that I am gay. There is nothing I can do about it. To say it might change is flying in the face of all recognised evidence and research, or is he suggesting I am mentally ill? Perhaps it would be better if all gays were locked away in some institution somewhere? Either God, society or my parents made me the way I am, I didn't. Do you think I would have chosen to go through the agony or hating myself and having to live a lie and hide my real self from everybody every day form fear??? Just m aybe it is that true loving same sex relationships can, and often are, much more loving and caring than many heterosexual relationships, and this cannot possibly be admitted. Or is it that there is not much chance of a same sex relationship producing children that will be brought up as CHristians within the Church and so increase the numbers? In respect of the latter maybe if the church showed more respect it would get more respect and parents would be happy to bring up children within a church that did not go against all the anti discrimination teaching their children were getting at home and school? Please you may dislike or even hate Gays John but I did think that Christian teaching at least required respect? Your comment had little to do with Gay marriage and all about anti gay.

So John, were you once attracted sexually to guys and now attracted to women? It must be so since you have the insight to say that the teen's attraction may change. I suspect that your attraction has not changed and it is cruel to imply that this teen or any other teen's attractions will change. I think most adolescents know who they are sexually attracted to and it is not going to change. Read what Terence has to say.

Sadly, the experience of the young teen who described his contemplation of suicide is far from rare. It is well established that the rate of teen suicides among LGBT youth is markedly higher than that for other young people. This arises from two primary causes - a feeling of self-hatred and sinfulness largely engendered by the messages received from society and religion, or from constant bullying by other young people. Sometimes, this bullying becomes actual violence, even murder - there are countless cases on record all over the world, of people who have been murdered specifically because they were, or were believed to be, gay. It is also a matter of record that many of the people engaging in this bullying and violence do so because they believe that they are defending religious belief. It is little wonder that so many young gay people are driven to thoughts of suicide, but there are other strategies some adopt. One is simply to leave home, and find company with others of like mind: as with suicide, the rate of homelessness among LGBT youth is far higher than for other young people. Another strategy, widely adopted by gay adults as well as young people, is simply to walk away from the church and all religious practice, on the basis that working within the church is in effect colluding with the enemy. (Those of us who identify openly as gay Catholics, often find that it easier to find acceptance by other Catholics, than by other gay men). Another is the strategy that I adopted, forty years ago - to attempt to suppress the reality of my life, and try to live fully within church teaching. The result was a completely inappropriate marriage to a woman with whom I had a close emotional relationship, but no sexual attraction at all, and then far too quickly, two children followed. Coupled with additional sources of stress, the marriage gradually deteriorated. Both my wife and I moved steadily away from the church, and from any religious practice. The marriage became ultimately damaging and destructive for all concerned, culminating (after a series of suicide attempts by my wife) in one major one which was very nearly completed. After finally being discharged from hospital, she simply left the family home, and moved across the country to live with her brother. (I am forced to consider whether these attempts on her life could have been avoided, had I had the sense to agree to divorce, instead of stupidly sticking to my innate Catholic belief that marriage is for ever - even when that marriage was patently poorly based). Ironically, it was only after the marriage ended so badly, and after I found the courage to accept my orientation, came out as gay, and found a new life with a loving male partner, that through him, I was led back to the Catholic Church, and active participation in its sacramental life. I could not have done so, however, if I had not already accepted that there was nothing 'disordered' in the loving relationship I had found. Whatever the Catechism might say, the experience of real people in real relationships teaches us that it is not a homosexual orientation that is disordered, but the teaching itself, causing real harm in myriad ways to gay men, lesbians and their families. .

Catholics like Virginia who support homosexual behaviour are undoubtedly motivated by Christian love. However, they should try to delve deeper into why the Church has steadfastly, for over 20 centuries, resisted any definition of licit sexual behaviour that is other than heterosexual. It seems to me that it is the Magisterium's understanding expressed in the Cathechism and in JPII Theology of the Body that has got it right and all the modern 'liberal' understandings that have got it wrong. This is because Christian orthodoxy sees the human person as a totality made up of body, mind and spirit. Thus it takes the nature of the body very seriously: its physical make-up and its functions and how it relates to the mind and the spirit. It sees these relationships as requiring gender complementarity which also has the natural function of reproduction and the socialisation of the children which result from this. Homosexuality, lesbianism and transgenderedness all deviate from this basic Christian understanding of the place of sexuality in human life. Catholicism takes this so seriously that it recognizes marriage as a sacrament. It seems to me that those who support gay marriage or civil partnerships - usually on the grounds that homosexuals are 'nice' people - are actually advocating the old heresy of gnosticism which denied that our physical bodies have any significance for our spiritual lives. The young teenager who began this post is clearly in need of some help to deal with his sexual attractions which could change over time. Advising him to contact homosexual activist groups does not seem to be sensible advice. By the way, John Boswell, a homosexual activist, has been largely discredited as a scholar.

Hi Chris, I have been thinking that I don't actually disagree with you. I feel that we should perhaps divorce the sacramental understanding of marriage from the civil understanding of marriage. By this I mean we should consider following the French and Belgium model, where all marriages must be civilly entered first and the sacrament celebrated separately.

Robin @22 Thank you very much for your refreshing words. I completely agree with you.

Jim, I don't know why you are splitting hairs. I am currently holding in my hand 'The Complete Rite of Marriage' not matrimony, if you want to distinguish between marriage and matrimony, go ahead, but we all know that what you call matrimony is understood by everybody else as the sacrament of marriage. Also if you check the subject index of the said catechesim that you obviously know so well, under marriage it says see matrimony, which seems to me that in the eyes of the church they are one and the same! To be honest I am not sure why we are arguing about this point, from my perspective for a Catholic one engages in the sacrament of marriage (matrimony), outside the Catholic Church there exists civil and religious marriage that is not a sacrament, on a personal note I have no problem with non-sacramental marriage (matrimony) be open to both hetro/homosexuals.

Kieran: check your catechism on the 7 sacraments. Marriage is not mentioned; Matrimony is. If you have raised Marriage to a sacrament, then all Christian denominations have another sacrament whether they know it or not. Do you think the CDF et al will go along with that?

Hi Jim, I referred to the sacrament of marriage and not the secular institution of marriage. That is a clear distinction. From a Catholic point of view marriage is a sacrament - are there other forms of marriage, yes of course, but for a Catholic marriage means the sacrament.

Why is the church so concerned about civil law saying that a same sex relationship is a marriage. There is no outcry from the church that civil law calls a divorced person's re-marriage a marriage. Which is a more serious threat, a same sex relationship called a marriage, or someone married for the umpteenth time called a marriage. Which did Jesus condemn?

I stand corrected on Patrick Hadley's (#18) point to this extent: the Church indeed recognises civic marriages of non-Catholics (baptised or otherwise) as sacramental---at least in the sense of being indissoluble. (As far as I know, it does not recognise a civic marriage involving a baptised Catholic as sacramental / indissoluble.) But all of this misses the real point, which I understand to be the following: the bishops core claim is that if legislation uses the nomenclature of 'marriage' in regard to a civil contract that gays undertake, then that legislation undermines the institution of marriage (both civil and sacramental, I presume). Such a judgement call has nothing to do with doctrine. As I see it, bishops (and indeed Catholics in general) may legitimately differ from one another in regard to this judgment call. A doctrinal issue is not at stake. I, for one, see no cogent reason why heterosexual marriage will be undermined. Indeed, the fact that gays aspire to an institution which takes seriously their intention to commit to each other for life could well underscore the claim that such a life-long commitment between heterosexuals is a noble and praiseworthy thing. It may well refocus society on the dignity of marriage in a milieu where more and more heterosexual couples eschew the unconditional commitment of marriage. I could be wrong in this assessment, but then so could the marching-in-step bishops be wrong in theirs.

Kieran @ # 20: *Matrimony* has been raised to a sacrament. *Marriage* is a secular institution, based on which are granted certain benefits, rights and responsibilities. That is what same-sex couples are seeking as citizens of the US and the USA in which I live. The idea that religious biases can control secular actions is, at best, hubristic.

I have been reading this blog since Virginia's lovely commentary. I was immediately horrified to read my young gay teen friend's comment - in this day and age, in this diverse, tolerant world that I live in, I could not quite believe his anguish. I am a gay middle-aged man. I became a Catholic many years ago. I studied for the priesthood in Rome, became a priest, served in a parish for three years and left - church and priesthood. Since then, 25 years ago, I have come back to being a Catholic, but always on the fringe of faith. My heart loves the warm, loving, accepting Catholic community I know, including many close priest friends. My intellect does not believe in God, or Church, and I do not feel the need for faith to support my journey as a person and someone who serves his fellow human beings. I remain, ostensibly, a practising Catholic, only my closest friends know where I do not fear to stand intellectually. I am quite content in my un-belief. Most of my completely non-religious friends think religion is at best mad, at worst a hindrance to a humane life. Sometimes I agree. For me, the only thing that really matters in life is to love - whether it be a partner, a friend, a client, an animal, a flower - in love alone do I find what others may call the mystery of God. If God be love, let us love on. Through love, with heart and mind, we become truly human and perhaps - do we become also divine?

Well said, Virginia! I could not agree more (as a happily married heterosexual cradle Catholic in my mid 60s). Where God is, there is love, however unsettling that might be.

Patrick, Of course civil marriages are proper marriages, so to for all marriages that took place prior to the Incarnation but unfortunately since, as the Church believes marriage has been raised to a sacrament, there is now only one 'real' kind of marriage for a Catholic.

This is a very refreshing discussion. The dimension missing, I find, is that a spirituality of submission and dedication to God implies implications for moral behaviour, affecting the decision to form a binding relationship. The Christian seeking deeper commitment and maturity has always sought to bring sexual and personal behaviour under the reign of God. The problem encountered by same sex partnerships is the overwhelming number of Christians who see their faith exercised in family life, and in the bearing of children, or alternatively, by a life of celibacy. The difficulty comes for gay people who may see their lifestyle as a calliing of God, but find little support amongst other Christians that this is appropriate as an expression of God's purpose for them. 'Straight' Christians often experience difficulties in sustaining marriage, but chose it as God's calling to them. If God is calling the Church to support gay marriage, then some way needs to be found to hear that call. It is not, after all, our desires but God's calling which seems most important for Christians to hear.

Thank you Virginia for a very moving blog. I agree with everything you said. In case nobody else does can I point out that 'Chico' comment 11, is totally wrong about civil marriage. The Church has always recognised the validity of marriages between non-baptised people, after all St Joachim and St Anne were not baptised, but are not thought to have been 'living in sin' when Our Lady was born. Marriage existed long before the Church and exists among those who have no religious beliefs or practices. Civil marriages are real marriages and it is very surprising that some people who comment on Catholic blogs do not know this.

I am a straight, married Catholic Mum with 4 children. I have been married nearly 17 years and love my husband, and see God's love as central to our sacramental marriage. Like Virginia, celebrating that love in front of our family and friends in Church was essential. I would love to say something to the 16 year old teen. When I first went to university I heard a young Gay Christian man speak. He said that he was the son of a Baptist Minister, and was very involved in his Church Youth Group, and had realised that he felt no attraction to girls. Like you, he felt absolutely desperate about this. I will never forget him sharing his utter sense of hopelessness, and how he had planned to take his own life, until his faith reminded him that he was loved by God as he was, and that what he was, was Gay. He was such a gentle, good person I was utterly convinced that he was telling the truth and that his homosexuality was as much a part of him as my heterosexuality. He was v different from some of the other students who claimed to be gay almost as a shock tactic - this was someone sincere and thoughtful and good who was suffering in the core of his being. Later the Anglican chaplain led a study group, where we went through the bible and looked at all the texts that have been used to condemn homosexuality. I learnt that it was not at all as clear cut as some people made out. We came to the conclusion that it was promiscuity and abuse, irresponsibility and selfishness in sexuality that was abhorrent, not a loving, committed God-centred faithful relationship. That was nearly 30 years ago, and I feel so sad that here is another good Christian boy contemplating taking his life. Please read all the comments encouraging you. You are not alone. I am so sorry our Christian church in general does not support you enough, but please take Virginia's tips and contact the organisation she cites, and be aware that there are many people moved by your honesty and praying for you. The most important thing is that you know that you are loved and cherished as yourself by God. At 16, in spite of all the pressures in our society, I would say as a Christian that it's best not to rush into a sexually active relationship, heterosexual or homosexual, to prove that, but neither do you have to deny or suppress your natural feelings of attraction. I will pray that when the time is right, and if marriage is for you, you will find the person who will make you understand how deeply lovable and precious you are and have a deeply loving, fulfilling, Peace-filled relationship. I am sure your Mum loves you very much.I will pray that you will be able to tell her. I hope she says the right thing but please forgive her if at first she reacts with over protectiveness of you from a desire to shield you from hurt. Remember you have been thinking about this for some time already. However, she may already have guessed, and a loving mum would a thousand times rather you have a happy fulfilled life than feel you would rather not be alive. Perhaps your Gran can help. She sounds wonderful. Lots of love to you x God bless you - may you have a wonderful life ahead of you x As Julian of Norwich says 'All Shall be Well, and all shall be well and all manner of things shall be well'. The God of Love is in charge.

To the young gay teen I would like to say this. You are, as we all are, made in the image of God. You are just as valued and loved by Him as we all are. I have a gay son who has no doubt experienced some of the hurtful negativity that you have. That is a reflection on other people not on him. He is a kind, generous, responsive and loving person, just as I would wish. I would not want him any other way. I am sure you are the same. Give your mum the opportunity to love you as you are. Society and the Church IS changing. The views you may read and hear are not the views of everyone. God loves you.

Virginia: thank you for your clear Christian message.

Joseph Moloney said: 'The Church does not 'change'..'� Joseph, your reading of history is sorely lacking. I will point out just a few areas in which 'the Church'� has changed and changed drastically! '¢ In 1866 Pope Pius IX declared, 'It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.'� '¢ The church condemned usury at the Second Lateran Council in 1139, the Third Lateran Council in 1179, and the Council of Vienne in 1311. (Too bad that the Vatican Bank hasn't read these Conciliar decrees.) '¢ Anyone who wasn't a Catholic was doomed to hell. Specifically, 'extra ecclesia nulla salus'�. (Fourth Lateran Council '“ 1215) (Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam sanctam - 1302). '¢ The 1864 encyclical 'Quanta Cura' by Pius IX explicitly condemned freedom of religion. '¢ If you ate meat on Friday and died before confessing, you would go to hell because to do so was a mortal sin. '¢ You were not allowed to read any book on the Index of Forbidden Books without prior church permission.

Virginia's article is very clear and it hinges on close contact with the freely expressed feelings of gay people, not the rule book. I endorse Alan's comment wholeheartedly. We are in danger of 'stoning' faithful Christians who feel torn between their church and the self God has given them, by giving out a message, directly or indirectly, that they are 'unclean'. Some might even be tempted to suicide. For me (writing as a straight Anglican who has become aware of the pain of Christian couples who can't proclaim their love) the words used are not of primary (marriage, partnership) are not of primary importance, but I look forward to the day when Anglican and RC churches can celebrate rather than decry this love that scarcely dare breathe its name in church. My heart goes out to Anon UK. I changed my mind about gay relationships through studying other Christians' reassessments of Scripture and Tradition. I think it's incumbent on us all to examine our own hearts and the heart of our faith.

I am amazed that commentators and bishops continue to conflate civil and sacramental marriage. Civil marriage, heterosexual or gay, is merely a legal contract---nothing more! Any two people (siblings, friends, lovers, gay, whatever) sharing living space and possessions are well-advised to enter into a civil contract to regulate their affairs. What people call that legal document is completely irrelevant---whether they label it a marriage or a miasma or a mirage. Whether sacramental marriage is undermined merely by calling such a legal contract between gays a marriage is a matter of opinion---not a matter of doctrine. Bishops have no more competence than anyone else to make a judgement call on the issue. I find it appalling that bishops worldwide march like little tin soldiers to the pipes of the pope on this matter. No-one is brave enough to voice an independent opinion, even though this is a civic matter and not doctrinal matter. Everyone treats it as if it is doctrine, and as if approval of civil gay marriage would somehow undermine the pope. Nothing better illustrates how the post-Vatican II bishops have misinterpreted the notion of collegiality than this unquestioned bowing and scraping to Rome on all matters, even non-doctrinal ones.

Thank you everyone who has commented on this article. I do appreciate your comments even if you disagree with me. For those who say I haven't expressed much about sacramental marriage, I would like to clarify my position. This is a very short piece and I wasn't able to address that fully. For the record, I believe marriage is a three way sacrament between me, my husband and God and making my vows in Church before God, family, and friends was one of the most sacred moments of my life. And so I will continue in all conscience to dissent with the Church's position which I believe denies such sacred moments for gay people. I am deeply touched by Anon's comments. Please don't despair. Please know you are not alone and it was hearing my friends had had such experiences that led me to change my views. I hope you have someone you can talk to but if you don't can I recommend The Christian Lesbian and Gay Movement? http://www.lgcm.org.uk/ I'll pray for you.

Hi Kieran. I agree that the Church missed a trick by not taking the opportunity to talk about marriage. I have no issue with sacramental marriage remaining between a man and a woman considering the church definition. I do accept though that there is a secular definition of marriage also which would be compatible with homosexual unions. I don't agree with the notion of homosexuality as an intrinsic disorder and I can appreciate how this may be insulting to people who are gay. I think there should be more discussion and focus on the sacrament of marriage from Church leaders and less concern about legal definitions that are likely to have no direct impact on the Catholic Church.

Alan, I hope that I didn't come across as condemning anyone, that was not my intention. I attempted to address the point made by Chris.

I am amazed that all the comments have ignored the heartfelt expression by the teen, the first of all the comments. Some of the comments are so hateful, that it seems some might not care if his sexual identity caused him to commit suicide. What do we say to a young man like that, who will obviously be hurt even more by some of these comments. It seems that some would simply damn him to hell. Who (or specifically what homosexual) did Jesus condemn. His condemnatory words were rather addressed to the religious leaders of the day who piled on legal obligations with no willingness to help the over burdened.

It was the CHURCH that made marriage a sacrament, not Christ. he just turned water into wine, and I really don't see how providing more wine at a wedding for people to get drunk is creating a sacrament. However it IS sacramental to declare your love in front of your family and friends and at the feet of Christ. If the church does not change why is slavery now considered wrong when it was considered right? Why can we now shave and wear clothe of more than one material? All these are condemned in Scripture???? I am sorry but to me, at least, the Holy Scripture is a living book and God is STILL creating. We are NOT a finished object and the Bible is NOT a history book. But I will probably be treated with contempt as a mere 16yo with no knowledge and little faith. I do not believe we should condemn anybody. CHrist taught love and reconciliation not hate and exclusion. Please really do think very hard about the subconscious messages you are giving to young people like, not only the gay ones but those who have gay friends that they appreciate and love even though they might not be gay themselves.

Hi Chris, you are right that we are called to give a varying degree of assent to different aspects of the teaching of the Church. However, one may ask whether it is possible not to give ones full assent to the understanding of marriage as a sacrament, and what (or whom) is necessary to validly constitute this sacrament. I actually believe that during the recent discussion concerning marriage the Church missed the opportunity of speaking claerly about the sacrament of marriage.

Joseph, the church does change and has done so on many occasions over the last 2000 years. Truths do not change but the church position on homosexuality is not a truth. Catholics do not have to uphold all aspects of church teaching and are indeed called to follow their conscience. This author is doing that and it may not fit with your world view but is equally valid as a human expression. Also there is mounting scientific evidence that suggests that homosexuality is indeed not a choice and is innate. I guess we will need to await the church response if this proves to be the case.

Is this a serious article? Another publicly dissenting Catholic! Please learn your faith and catechism. The Church does not 'change' - we are the ones that must 'change', when will post-modern liberal Catholics understand this? I can't believe that this was published by the Tablet without any attempt to promote or defend the theology and logic behind the Church's teachings on this issue. We don't celebrate sin and there is no rational or scientific argument at this stage to suggest that the same-sex attacted is any more 'born this way' than the alcoholic or porn-addicted is 'born that way'. We need to help these people, not celebrate the sin they ought to fight. We all have our vices, but why are we celebrating this particular vice? A false notion of charity that Abp Fulton Sheen lamented many times.

What a wonderful blog posting. I totally agree with all you have said, I wish I could have said it so succinctly and clearly.

I notice that the meaning of marriage is barely mentioned in the piece by Ms Moffat. If sacramental marriage does not involve God and is merely 'my husband and me' then I can begin to understand why the idea of homosexual cohabitation is being considered on an equal footing as sacramental marriage. It seems to me that the idea of equality under the law is being applied to the beliefs of the Church. The question to be asked is whether Church law is identical with positive law. If some say it is then we will always have abortion on demand in law and by the same token we can have gay 'marriages'. I am all for civil unions for those homosexuals who wish to validate their relationship. Marriage no. Not until marriage is defined differently in my Catholic Tradition.

It was just awesome to read Virginia's comments. I am a teen, 16 years old and I am gay ( I have only felt safe to tell my Gran, even my mum does not know) I live in England. I have sung in my village church choir since I was 7 years old, and still do. I have a deep faith that penetrates all of my life. My village priest has twice asked me if I had ever thought about being ordained. Knowing I am gay and receiving all the anti gay messages the church (both RC and Anglican) put out as only resulted in me hating myself and made me feel unclean, unloved, and really a modern leper. I have made an attempt on my life, but it was put down to stress at school so I was able to keep the real reason a secret. I can only write this because I don't think anybody who knows me in the UK will read it. Jesus made no comment on homosexuality, but he did condemn divorce, saying it was the same as committing adultery. The church does not push that though!!!!! Leviticus not only goes on about food but also say we should not wear clothes of mixed materials, but we do. If heterosexual marriage is only about procreation, where is love in that??