I first heard about gay conservative Catholic John Heard in Melbourne’s DNA Magazine two years or so ago.

Apparently, John is a ‘gay conservative Catholic’ who is opposed to same-sex marriage and civil unions.

I have no problem with John’s belief system. Evidently, he believes in the sanctity of Catholic marital rituals and is willing to obey the Vatican when it comes to not “trespassing” on an institution which gives legitimacy to the procreation of children. Okay, fair enough. As I’ve said before, I’m an agnostic when it comes to the ritual and ceremonial aspects of marriage. I see no reason why he should be denigrated for holding this particular set of beliefs, although I am concerned about the other, more problematic aspects of what being a gay conservative Catholic could be like.

According to conservative Catholic dogma, homosexuality is an “objective moral disorder.”  What this means is that lesbians and gay men are dysfunctional, if we do decide to act on our desire for significant and meaningful human relationships with the same sex. That is, except if we decide not to act on them, in which case we are acclaimed for being ”faithful children of the church.”  Insofar as the “moral” aspect of this proscription is concerned, we are viewed as being capable of making specific decisions in or out of line with conservative Catholic “morality.”

As for “objective,” this is where it gets confusing. As I’ve noted before when reviewing conservative Catholic publications or discussing their philosophy, “objective” is not used in its contemporary sense of evidence-based empirical scientific procedures and outcomes.

 It means following a series of prescribed syllogisms to achieve a prescribed “logical” result, even if it totally contradicts observable reality. Saint Thomas Aquinas pioneered this “natural law” philosophy in the twelfth century, and it seems based on the proposition that marital heterosexual relations are intended for reproduction of the species- that is, unless heterosexuals use contraception and abortion if fertile, or in vitro fertilisation if they’re not.

Lesbianism and male homosexuality are “unnatural” because they don’t result in eventual procreation. Never mind that not using condoms may also mean that the unlucky are exposed to syphilis, gonnorhea, HIV/AIDS or other STIs.

As a Wiccan, I disagree. While bearing and raising children are two of life’s pleasures, the two don’t need to go together. As long as relationships are consensual and egalitarian, and over the age of comprehension and consent, then I have no problem with them. Moreover, research shows that same-sex led families are as loving and nurturant as heterosexual counterparts- perhaps more so in some areas.

John is entitled to his beliefs, although I’m afraid that he isolates himself from most Australasian lesbians and gay men. Personally, I’m indifferent to same-sex marriage, and consider civil unions perfectly satisfactory parallel, equivalent and secular rituals and ceremonies to heterosexual marriage. Some lesbians and gay men feel very differently, perhaps those within inclusive religious denominations or faiths more so than the rest of us. To them, some form of same-sex marital ritual and ceremony is what they want, and I don’t intend to stand in their way.

Here’s his blog anyway. Could I ask anyone who responds to him not to engage in derogatory comments about his beliefs? Even if we disagree, he does seem willing to engage in calm, rational and philosophical dialogue over that disagreement. Unlike the vitriolic, incendiary and histrionic diatribes of many of his fellow heterosexual Australian Christian Right believers in the ’sanctity’ of heterosexual marriage.

And hey, with this one, I’ve reached Blog 200 for this site!

Recommended:

John’s blog:

http://johnheard.blogspot.com/2008/01/dreadclarity-john-heards-conservative.html