All those who have written about their reaction to what I wrote on homosexuality last time have been in favour. A bit of a surprise. Only one has raised a question, not so much to oppose the issue as to ask for an explanation. Sex is for procreation, he says, and since that is not the case in homosexual relationships, they would stand forbidden.

That brings up the fundamental question. Sex is for procreation. It is. But not only for that. To say that sex is exclusively meant for procreation is an exaggeration, as sex is something much deeper and richer and more complex than that. Sex is also meant to foster intimacy, company, marriage, family, shared joy, innocent pleasure. Always with the proviso not to do any harm to anybody, of course, but not only and exclusively for procreation. In fact most of sex relationships do not lead up to conception. If nature would have intended sex for conception only, it could have made it a little more efficient.

The Church accepts that married couples past fertile age may lawfully have sex. The woman has reached her menopause so that she cannot have children, and yet she can have sex with her husband. That is, sex without procreation. And the Church accepts that. Again, the Church accepts sex for a woman who has undergone a hysterectomy. As she has no uterus she cannot conceive, but she can continue having sex within her marriage. That is, the principle that sex is for procreation is true in general, but it has exceptions admitted by the Church, and homosexuality could become another accepted exception. The principle, as such, is no obstacle, as it already admits of exceptions approved by the Church.