You can expect that those who support Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried will find eager allies in those who support the homosexualist agenda. The former are willing (or want) to detach the sexual act from marriage. The latter want to detach the sexual act from procreation.
Thus, Fishwrap (aka National Schismatic Reporter) is all over a story from CNS reporting that:
A married couple told Pope Francis and the Synod of Bishops on the family that Catholic parishes should welcome same-sex couples, following the example of parents who invite their son and his male partner to their home for Christmas.
I don’t want to shift any blame onto the couple who spoke at the Synod, of course. It is the sensationalizing of the reportage that is troublesome.
That said, I wonder just how it is that parishes should welcome homosexual “couples”? What would that look like? What do we mean by “couples”? Civilly married “couples”?
Here’s the deal.
Part of the problem of homosexual “couples” (and perhaps also civilly remarried couples) involves the corruption of friendship.
Say a man and woman are in an irregular situation. One, a Catholic, is divorced from the previous spouse. No decree of nullity. Civil marriage follows to another Catholic. They cannot receive Communion as is. However, it could be possible for them to receive Communion (provided that they avoid scandal) were they willing to live in a “Josephite” marriage or a “brother and sister” situation. As you can imagine, it could happen that once in a while they might slip, as it were. In that case, they go to confession and start again, resolved to do better.
Say a man and a man, who are great friends, determine to live together, share expenses, take care of each other when ill, etc. They are heterosexual and they don’t have any attraction to each other. They are simply great friends, like Capt. Aubrey and Dr. Maturin, Capt. Kirk and Mr. Spock, Mr. Holmes and Dr. Watson, Porthos, Athos and Aramis… okay, that’s three. Jesus and the Apostles. No problems here.
Say a man and a man, who are great friends, determine to live together, share expenses, take care of each other when ill, etc. They, however, are homosexuals and they do have an attraction to each other. However, they have determined to live chastely, because they know that homosexual acts are sinful. As you can imagine, it might happen that they slip once in a while. They go to confession – like any other sinners do – and they renew their resolve to live chastely. That is not very different from the situation in which the divorced and remarried couple find themselves in.
You might bring up the point that they have placed themselves in an occasion of sin, because the proximity of the other person is too tempting. This would apply to the man and woman living like “brother and sister” and to the homosexuals.
I respond in two ways. First, human beings are not brute animals which have no control over their appetites. Second, say they have separate dwellings. There is nothing to stop them from getting into the car at any time of the day or night. Separation in separate dwellings isn’t a guarantee of anything, in this highly mobile world we live in.
Yes, there are some less thoughtful reactionaries who will jump all over this like a trampoline, because they hold that, if you are attracted to another person, you should avoid even seeing that person. Sure, that is one approach. I don’t recall that it’s in the Bible. It isn’t de fide. It is one way to counsel a person, depending on the circumstances.
That said, those who want divorced and civilly remarried couples to receive Communion without any commitment to living chastely, while continuing to have marital relations whenever, are, in effect, separating the sexual act from its proper locus, valid marriage. Homosexualists, homosexual activists, will find this goal parallel to their own. If they can disconnect the sexual act from its primary end, procreation, they score a victory.