There’s an interview/article on John Milbank at the Times Higher Education website.
He’s speaking about atheism/secularism and the returning influence of theology in the public sphere. He also touches on issues in science and politics.
Interestingly , the article states he opposes gay marriage and quotes him as saying “I don’t want to get into the situation where we deny there is something special about being attracted to the opposite sex”. Milbank has previously advocated gay marriage so I wonder whether this is a definite shift in his thinking to a more orthodox position or whether he’s simply been misinterpreted. That he’s moving towards a position more in line with that of Catholic teaching is perhaps confirmed by his statement that “By supporting the total disjuncture of sex and procreation, the Left is really supporting a new mode of fascism.”
He’s probably somewhat overselling the influence of Radical Orthodoxy, however, when he speculates on whether the RC hierarchy is wondering whether RO can “will provide them with a way of loosening up without selling out”! Though I can’t claim any special privilege into the reading habits of those in the upper echelons of the Vatican, I’m not entirely sure they’re all reading RO.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=406157&c=1
I’m going to say misinterpretation. If you check out the interview at the end of the Belief and Metaphysics volume, he is trying to affirm homosexuality as being a genuine good, while simultaneously affirming heterosexuality and not reducing one to the other. “I don’t want to get into the situation where we deny there is something special about being attracted to the opposite sex” seems to be consistent with this position. I quote from this interview:
“It seems to me that we have to accept there are people who are simply born homosexual and that this appears to be a divine intention. In such cases it is, I believe, utterly wrong to deny such people sexual fulfilment. The Church needs to find a way to recognize their relationships, as was already envisaged by the great Russian Orthodox theologian Pavel Florensky, and more recently by Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.”
Of course, this may or not be in a marriage, but I think in theory, this seems more inclined to be for it than against it.
Thanks Alex and all. My position was and remains that we need to recognise gay civil partnerships but distinguish this from marriage.
John
Thanks for the clarification regarding this issue.