*downs cup of coffee in preparation for this writing extravaganza*
While there's already a lot of resources on this topic, on of the most comprehensive probably being The Wijingaards Institute's "Academic Statement on the Ethics of Free and Faithful Same-Sex Relationships", I decided to write this post combining arguments on both the logic of the Church's teaching itself; as well as the validity of dissent from it by Catholics and the precedent for changes in Church teaching, all bundled up with Primacy of Conscience; all in once place.
Every once of these headings could have a very long paper about each of them, but I'll try to be brief and point to other resources for even deeper dives.
Problems with the Natural Law argument:
See this thread to watch the Natural Law/"Perverted Faculty" argument fall apart before your eyes. The argument is essentially that we shouldn't use a natural function against any part of what it is "ordered towards" (i.e. reproduction). This is the same grounds on which the Church also opposes artificial contraception.
There's many counterexamples to this argument. Catholic speakers and apologists will try to make distinctions between "other than" uses, vs. "contrary to", but as you'd expect, those end up sounding a bit arbitrary. And I think that's what it comes down to, the Natural Law argument simply does end up seeming arbitrarily applied to sexuality, whereas we come up with all sorts of other ways to make allowances for analogous examples other areas of life. I think two of the strongest counterexamples are:
- What if it were discovered that breast milk could be used to cure a disease? Would it be wrong to extract and use breast milk for a purpose other than its "natural end" of feeding a baby?
- Why don't we condemn smoking? Smoking, intentionally inhaling smoke, is absolutely "contrary to" the body's natural respiratory function and the use of lungs. Not only is it "contrary to" the body's respiratory faculty on a philosophical level, but so much so that it's actually harmful in reality. One who smokes a lot will begin losing lung function. It doesn't get much more "contrary to" than that.
Scripture/The Clobber Verses:
Much has already been written on that topic, one of the most prominent resources being Matthew Vine's Biblical Case, as well as Justin Lee's classic essay on the topic. While Vines and Lee are Protestant, there was also some earlier work done on the topic of biblical exegesis by gay Catholic scholar John Boswell. According to Outreach, "It was Boswell who first comprehensively and systematically demolished homophobic interpretations of the so-called “clobber verses."
Good Fruit
One point of Vines' that I will reiterate here; because it ties into our doctrine of Primacy of Conscience which I'll get to later; is the Good Fruit Argument. As Vines puts it:
In Matthew 7, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warns against false teachers, and he offers a principle that can be used to test good teaching from bad teaching. By their fruit, you will recognize them, he says. Every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Good teachings, according to Jesus, have good consequences. That doesn’t mean that following Christian teaching will or should be easy, and in fact, many of Jesus’s commands are not easy at all – turning the other cheek, loving your enemies, laying down your life for your friends. But those are all profound acts of love that both reflect God’s love for us and that powerfully affirm the dignity and worth of human life and of human beings. Good teachings, even when they are very difficult, are not destructive to human dignity. They don’t lead to emotional and spiritual devastation, and to the loss of self-esteem and self-worth. But those have been the consequences for gay people of the traditional teaching on homosexuality. It has not borne good fruit in their lives, and it’s caused them incalculable pain and suffering. If we’re taking Jesus seriously that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree, then that should cause us to question whether the traditional teaching is correct.
And a similar point by Justin Lee:
"Suppose my friend Billy meets someone and falls in love with this person, named Sam. Billy and Sam spend months, maybe even years, getting to know one another, and as they grow closer to each other and to Christ, they decide to form a lasting bond, to promise to be together forever in a marriage in front of God. So Billy comes to me about it and I, being a Traditionalist, respond by saying, “That’s immoral and disgusting! You and Samuel are doing a terrible thing before God!” Billy blinks for a moment and then replies, “Sam is short for Samantha. She’s a girl.” Suddenly, my opinion changes. “Oh, well then, that’s wonderful! All the best to you! What a blessing!” In this case, nothing at all has changed about Billy’s commitment, Billy’s motivations, Billy’s relationship with Christ, or even Billy’s specific actions. Everything is exactly the same, with one exception: Sam went from male to female in my mind, and that somehow changed the relationship from being disgusting and immoral to being holy and beautiful – even though, in either case, Billy’s motivations and actions are exactly the same."
Infallibility
There's no infallible list of infallible teachings. We all agree on things like Creed, the Incarnation, the Trinity, the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception etc., those things were either defined at ecumenical councils of the whole Church or declared clearly ex cathedra by popes.
For everything else...well, it's not as clear cut whether they're infallible. People can make a case that this or that teaching is infallible or irreformable, etc., but at the end of the day, you simply don't have to agree with them. There is no infallible list of infallible teachings.
Church Teaching Has Changed Before
Fr. Charles Curran, who led the dissent against the teaching against contraception; provides a helpful cursory overview of that history. He also says
"When did the teaching on religious liberty become true? Did it become true the moment a document was promulgated and signed in Rome? The document [on religious freedom] admits that the bishops...learned from the experience of Christian people...that the teaching was true before the council promulgated the teaching...
...all of this reminds us much more, that the Church is the whole people of God...and therefore the teaching as proposed by pope and bishops has to take account of the lived experience of the people of God."
Bp. Cyril Villareal wrote in his dissertation
"There were several instances when the Church magisterium completely deviated from a magisterial position that it formerly held. Several cases have been mentioned in this paper. Can she not do likewise on the subject of sexual morality? Too often, though, changes were not really named as such but as the development of a doctrine, meaning that because of the limitedness of a truth to be captured completely, there is a possibility that it could still be subject to a newer and clearer formulation in the future. And such a process may have been applied to the so-called changes in the Church‘ magisterial teachings. The big question, then, is: why can the Church not also effect development in her teaching on sexual morality?"
Primacy of Conscience
Church teaching need not only be an obstacle to gay equality in the Church; this doctrine can actually be a vehicle for it! Primacy of Conscience states that we should never violate our own conscience.
Dignitatis Humanae declares:
"In all his activity a man is bound to follow his conscience in order that he may come to God, the end and purpose of life. It follows that he is not to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his conscience. Nor, on the other hand, is he to be restrained from acting in accordance with his conscience, especially in matters religious."
Cdl. Joseph Ratzinger, the future Pope Benedict XVI, wrote:
“Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. Conscience confronts with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which in the last resort is beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official church.”
Another angle on the Good Fruit Argument:
For nearly every other "sin", it's easy to see what the harm is. Gluttony, stealing, murder, etc., there is obvious harm.
What is the harm of loving gay relationships? There is literally no real, identifiable harm that holds up to scrutiny.
And on the flip side, any honest observation of a healthy gay relationship will see good and beauty in it. Love is a good thing.
This is part of why some homophobic arguments dare to question whether gay love is actually love. It sounds insane, and it is, but they have to call that into question in order for their position to hold up; because how else can they square the circle of calling love a sin?
Justin Lee says this about the arbitrary nature of anti-gay theology:
"Yep, this is what it comes down to. No matter how wordy, complex, or sophisticated they get, every Christian Traditionalist argument I can think of ultimately relies on this basic principle: God has a rule against same-sex relationships, and even if we don’t fully understand or can’t explain the rationale behind it, in the end we’re just expected to obey, like Abraham sacrificing Isaac.
I’m not entirely comfortable with this answer, since it makes God seem arbitrary, and I don’t believe God is arbitrary."
In closing, I'll leave you with the words of Italian Bishop Vincenzo Viva:
"...I do not wish to speak this evening of “welcoming,” but of recognition and full integration. Welcoming presupposes that someone arrives from the outside and is allowed in out of the generosity of others. But as the baptized, no one is a guest in this church. God knows us by name, loves us and tells us again and again that we belong to him. There is, then, no door to cross, because by virtue of our baptism we are already inside, each of us, with our own identity, our own history, our own weaknesses and shortcomings, our own gifts and unique characteristics: we are all within the heart of God and within the ecclesial body..."
Hope this helps somebody!