Why Ms Keneally is wrong...Love and Responsibility

Kristina Keneally, former premier of New South Wales, a self professing Catholic politician, writes a piece on Why I Support Gay Marriages.

Now, I could refute her article on many terms...Church teaching, dissidence, informed conscience, sacramentality of marriage, importance of marriage laws for the protection of women and of children, fallacious and emotive argument ....I will, however, restrict myself, to one of the many inaccuracies contained in her argument.

"....homosexual acts are preferable to living a life where one can never give expression to one's sexuality."

Oh dear. Herein lies the inaccuracy. That expression of sexuality relies solely on the sexual act itself.

This is a purely a utilitarian point of view of sexuality.

The sexual urge...is a natural drive born in all human beings, a

vector of aspiration along which their whole existence develops

e for enjoyment this inner life of the person

and perfects itself from within... If...the sexual urge is understood

as...a drive for enjoyment this inner life of the person

is almost totally negated... The sexual urge in man is a fact

which he must...welcome as a source of natural energy. Pope John Paul II,Love and Responsibility

The sexual urge, our sexuality, is not to be used ..for us or for others. It is a gift from God. It is expressed in our love for others, our natural creative energy, our passions...and not only strictly in a physical sense.

I can be chaste and yet still express my sexuality..by my life, my creativity, my

vocation, my love.

Love between persons...must possess a clear-cut objective

purpose... Man’s capacity for love depends on his willingness

consciously to seek a good together with others... From the

desire for the ‘unlimited’ good of another ‘I’ springs the whole

creative drive of true love. Ibid

Man's creativity is often fueled by love. not by requiring a physical sexual union or by a burying of love nor by a lack of expression of sexuality.

If we limit the expression of our sexuality to the physical act of sex, we miss out on the fullness of our expression of humanity, our passions, we deny whole sections of our sexuality and creativity .....simply in order to reduce human sexuality to a mere physical act.

Even if we never experience the physical act of sexuality, we still experience our sexuality, we still express it, in our love and actions, for the greater good.

The dignity of the person demands control of concupiscence. If

the person does not exercise such control it...allows an

inferior...part of itself to enjoy freedom of action, and indeed

subjects itself to this lesser self... Control of concupiscence has

as its objective not only the perfection of the person who attempts

to achieve it, but also the realization of love in the world of persons. Ibid

This is the danger of this part of Keneally's argument , that one cannot live a full life without expressing one's sexuality via open acts of sexual union, via changing marriage laws to adapt to a person's desires and not for the good of society. Her statement reduces sexual orientation and sexuality to one element alone..the physical sense..and this denies the ultimate good of individuals and of society. This denies love itself. Love which means thinking of another, not having to express sexuality on our own terms, not having to form society to fit my desires, my carnal desires, my concupiscence.

Only the chaste..are capable of true love...

Chastity frees their association...from

that tendency to use a person which

is...incompatible with ‘loving kindness’...

The essence of chastity

consists in quickness to affirm the

value of the person in every situation...

Chastity...does involve a certain

humility of the body. Ibid

We can express our sexuality in our chastity, in affirming the value of ourselves and of others.

Ms Keneally, with her degree in theology, needs to read Love and Responsibility. And the Catechism of the Catholic Church. With logic and reasoning. And prayer and love.

.