Andrew Sullivan has a post about B16's first encyclical. Once again Andrew demonstrates how he can be so right, and so wrong at the same time.
"I'm struck, however, by the near-complete absence in the document of the love of "amicitia," of friendship. It is far more central to the Gospel message than eros, and under-estimated in our current culture, to our great detriment."
He is dead right when he says that "amicitia" is vital and more representative of the Gospel. I think the whole concept has been in retreat since the gay rights movement became so successful. Many heterosexual men cannot properly distinguish between "eros" and "amicitia" when it comes from other men. The two are not easily distinguished nor are they discussed. Try and show a male friend platonic love and it's very likely it would be confused for something else.
"I also, obviously, share Benedict's wonder at conjugal love. I see no conflict between the love of two homosexual men or women for each other and the mystery of heterosexual love."
The elephant in the room (at least from a Catholic standpoint) is procreation. The Church sees that as the foundation for sexual congress. It's also the reason that artificial contraception is illicit. Heterosexual sex within the confines of a marriage that impedes the chance of conception by artificial means is on the same moral plane as extramarital sex (pre or otherwise)and homosexuality. Surely Andrew knows this, he just chooses to ignore it.
"I'm struck, however, by the near-complete absence in the document of the love of "amicitia," of friendship. It is far more central to the Gospel message than eros, and under-estimated in our current culture, to our great detriment."
He is dead right when he says that "amicitia" is vital and more representative of the Gospel. I think the whole concept has been in retreat since the gay rights movement became so successful. Many heterosexual men cannot properly distinguish between "eros" and "amicitia" when it comes from other men. The two are not easily distinguished nor are they discussed. Try and show a male friend platonic love and it's very likely it would be confused for something else.
"I also, obviously, share Benedict's wonder at conjugal love. I see no conflict between the love of two homosexual men or women for each other and the mystery of heterosexual love."
The elephant in the room (at least from a Catholic standpoint) is procreation. The Church sees that as the foundation for sexual congress. It's also the reason that artificial contraception is illicit. Heterosexual sex within the confines of a marriage that impedes the chance of conception by artificial means is on the same moral plane as extramarital sex (pre or otherwise)and homosexuality. Surely Andrew knows this, he just chooses to ignore it.
Comments