I have never understood the moral approval of same-sex marriage [The Tablet, 27 September], I still cannot approve it and, after Margaret Farley's article in defence of same, I fear I never shall. Yet I am aware that there would seem to be a growing acceptance of the practice among Catholics and I looked, therefore, to her article to enlighten me, only to be disappointed.
She claimed initially that same-sex marriage need not be gender specific, as it clearly is, but then failed to say why not. Next she claimed that same sex marriage, just as ordinary marriage, can be a source of God's love for man, but again failed to say why. She maintained unarguably that marriage is about much more than just the sexual act and claimed that the same is also true for same-sex marriage, which she hadn't yet validated. Finally, she begged that God's grace be granted to all who presently fail to see same-sex marriage as pleasing to God as is marriage. Although it may not be possible to respond to this prayer, in no way does it imply any diminution in God's love for all His children.
I agree that sex in marriage between man and woman is not wholly justified by procreation alone: nonetheless it is surely indisputable that the ability to procreate within the act is essential to it. Margaret Farley admits that sex being "an inordinate and powerful drive... must be constrained and channelled" which must in turn limit its usage. In consequence it would seem that the sexual act between those of the same gender must, as with all misuse, be counted as sinful, but perhaps not of such gravity necessarily for it to be considered mortal and so worthy of hell.
John Holland, Ealing
Professor Margaret Farley explores marriage in biblical references and current fashions of thought, instead of the human nature in which it is rooted. That has led her to underestimate the importance of sex and marriage, of the tradition of the natural duality in human beings of body and spirit, and to conflate spiritual love, as something free, undying and independent, with bodily sexual union as something fleeting and requiring a marriage contract to reinforce its bonding of the parties to it, to last the lifetime of the family it naturally creates.
Professor Farley and other theologians’ questioning of the seemingly obvious complementarity of, extent of differences between, and the very number of, the sexes, resulting in controversies over what marriage even is, also indicates the questioners’ disregard of the natural ‘law’, insight into which, being natural, leaves the burden of justifying its rejection on themselves.
Daniel Wade, London NW9
Loading ...
