While there will be ample and necessary reflection and analysis upon yesterday’s landmark decisions in the Supreme Court, I want to pause here briefly and provide a more personal, pastoral reflection. Over the past year or so, I have been listening attentively to two close friends who have been in committed, same-sex relationships for over ten years (longer than my own marriage). In addition, both of these men are committed Christians, one of whom still practices in the Catholic tradition. Their reactions have common themes, but are also quite distinctive and illuminating for me as I reflect on this in a more academic and theological context.
In listening to one friend’s reaction since last fall when the marriage amendment was narrowly defeated in MN, and through the legalization of gay-marriage this spring, and now with the two Supreme Court rulings yesterday, his consistent comment has been this: His struggles with depression, anxiety, suicide, addiction, failed relationships in his early life all stemmed from a deep and abiding sense that he was not OK- that it was not OK to be who he was. There were both internal and external factors to these complex psychological phenomena, of course, but it took him until later in life even to realize and admit that he was gay. Recovery and spiritual and emotional health have only come for him after admitting this and accepting himself as he is. His response to each stage in this cultural development is that the personal significance of these public, legal, and political decisions has been an affirmation that it is finally OK to be himself, not just in his personal life, but in his public life, too. We sometimes get caught up in the political and legal wrangling and forget the deeply human face of such debates. Edith Windsor’s reaction to the decision capture this for many.
My Catholic friend’s reaction is fascinating as well. He takes seriously the church’s teaching on marriage and family, and feels that there is something distinctive to marriage for heterosexual couples who are then able to procreate and raise a family. But he also wants his relationship to be recognized, both by society and by the Church. He hopes there might be some creative ways to recognize the many goods that come from his homosexual relationship, even while recognizing this as distinct from a heterosexual marriage. This poses some interesting middle ground for theological reflection, such as some form of liturgical recognition of committed, same-sex couples. (I recognize here that many people in same-sex relationships feel that it is important to name their love as a marriage, but I am simply commenting on his reflections.)
Personally, I am happy that our political and legal institutions are creating a society and a space where homosexual persons feel validated in who they are. Additionally, I would hope that they would feel the same sense of validation within the Roman Catholic Church (though I can certainly understand why many don’t find this). Let me say this more directly: you ARE loved and welcome in the Church, because we, as the people of God, are all the Church (even if we sometimes struggle to express this love clearly). That is something we can all agree upon, even if we disagree about the theological, political, and legal responses.
Of course, I recognize that I am out of step with some of the magisterial leadership on whether or not to celebrate these legal developments (not on the point about you being loved), but even amidst this disagreement we can all find ways to purify our public rhetoric on these issues. Even as I and others come to a different theological and moral conclusion regarding homosexuality, we can still work together to promote the USCCB’s 2006 more humane pastoral guidelines for person’s of a homosexual orientation (more humane, that is, than the CDF’s 2003 Consideration Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, which relies heavily on the vulgar language of “intrinsically disordered”).
Even amidst disagreement about the moral and legal status of same-sex couples within the Church and within society, we can all agree that we need to work together to make the Church a place where everyone is accepted and capable of finding acceptance, forgiveness, and moral and spiritual sustenance for our journey toward salvation.
Thomas,
You lay out an ambitious agenda. I wonder how we will make our parishes more accepting and loving, with the Bishops on their current political trajectory? Unfortunately, the PR problem of the Church, conflated by a media atmosphere that makes it so easy to paint a negative picture of anyone with a complicated stance on homosexuality, like our own, has left our Church marked with an overwhelming negative reputation on this front. I think parishes, too, without a pastor who acknowledges these needs, will remain closed to the proper pastoral care of all of her members.
I would hope that in the near future, the language of “The Dignity of the Human Person” will be a household word in every parish, for every situation, not just the selected instances where the Bishops choose to invoke it politically.
Personally, I am happy that our political and legal institutions are creating a society and a space where homosexual persons feel validated in who they are.
Thomas, what if their sexual behavior is fundamentally immoral and leads to their demise at the final judgment? Isnt that what Catholic Moral Theology is all about? Holy behavior rather than just feeling good?
Thank you so much for this post. I too have been doing a lot of listening (and reading of Facebook posts) and it strikes me that we as a Church still have a lot to learn. We should keep listening. Keep paying attention to what your friends in same sex relationships say. I wish more people felt that the Church was there to support them in their discernment, but many in the GLBTQ community do not see the Church as a welcoming a safe space. So in that sense we have an ecclesiological problem which leads to the stigma and personal pain you describe.
I’ve been thinking about how — in the long history of the Church — there is such a back-and-forth relationship between religion and culture. Sometimes culture shapes religious practices, sometimes religious beliefs shape culture. It is a complex dance. I will be interested to see how this current issue develops, because the dance will go on.
Bruce, I don’t think your comment is fair to Thomas’s post. Recognition of one’s identity as created in the image and likeness of God is not the same as “feeling good.” I appreciate how you’ve bracketed “sexual behavior” as separate than orientation, because this is an important distinction in the tradition. But to talk about “holy behavior” in sexual ethics gets us into contested territory. That’s the contested territory that Thomas’s post tries to navigate with a great deal of sensitivity to people who have been pained by the church’s teachings on homosexuality.
Thomas wrote:
“am out of step with some of the magisterial leadership on whether or not to celebrate these legal developments”
Properly speaking, the opinions of certain US Catholic Bishops on Supreme Court rulings are not acts of the Catholic magisterium. To celebrate the narrow legal point that those in legal relationships outside marriage ought to enjoy certain tax advantages is well within the Catholic tradition. As would be the opposite view that the state is well within it’s rights to privilege heterosexual marriage given its essential role in the procreation and raising of children.
The ancient Christian advice of the Didache is worth holding on to:
“5:2 For if indeed thou art able to bear the whole yoke of the Lord thou shalt be perfect; but if thou art not able, do what thou canst.”
Very often, most of us are not able to live our lives in perfect conformity with every jot and tittle of Catholic teaching, and so we all ought to cut each other a good deal of compassion, understanding, and tolerance.
God Bless
sexual ethics gets us into contested territory
Emily, with all due respect, isnt contested territory what we are really talking about. Areas of agreement are just that, areas where we agree. Who needs Catholic Moral Theology if its main contribution is areas of agreement.
While I enthusiastically applaud your goal, I see little chance of the Church becoming a place where gays will be accepted, by any reasonable definition of that word.
There’s really no nice way to tell someone that their committed, loving, consensual, private sex life is a sin and abomination deserving of punishment in hell. This is particularly true when such statement follows centuries of oppression based largely upon such doctrines.
Too often Catholics and other Christians reach for a cake and eat it too solution by trying to marry a harsh doctrine to sweet words above love. This accomplishes little more than branding us as hypocrites.
The gay marriage issue requires clarity of mind and a decision. We can choose dogmas, authority and judgment, or we can choose love and acceptance. One or the other, not both.
Emily Reimer-Barry is utterly right. We have a lot to learn, and we should be listening. We should be listening to our gay friends, and thanking them, because it’s their suffering and insistence which is helping bring us to such an important choice.
Phil,
Regarding having cake and eating it, I think we bear the burden of having a nuanced view that must also be applied “in the world.” We are unable, at this stage, to undo any past dogmas, which were developed before the Church understood reproduction or sexual orientation, yet we are called to revere the dignity of the human person. I believe that the criticisms of Salzman and Lawler from “The Sexual Person” should, at the very least, give conservative Catholics pause on this issue, but if it doesn’t, I think we should also extend mercy to our leaders in this matter. I do not envy the heirarchy in their call to address this multipronged, multilayered and emotionally charged problem where everyone, straight and gay, is both involved, particularly feeling that the very definition of their orientation and their love is being defined. I know what I would like, but I do not know how it would affect our faith as a whole in the long run. Our Anglican brothers and sisters are suffering great strife and division right now, trying to solve this issue and I think we Catholics should compassionately witness their experience and take note of their courageous struggle. Catholics have seen enough strife for the time being and I would not wish to be the one to navigate this sea of change now.
My views were formed by pastoral work in the trenches of a hospital and at times, I have been drawn into a confrontational mentality against my more conservative brothers and sisters, yet, I think we are also should recognize that, as a faith group, we are in many ways, leagues ahead of those whose doctrines deny the LGBT community even their dignity. I would urge the Bishops to be more vocal about this aspect, but at least we have that and we have many progressive parishes that serve the LGBT community openly and lovingly( and most likely many more that do so in a more subdued, “ask don’t tell” manner). We are far ahead of the many faith and political groups who use religion with the expressed goal to demean the LGBT community. I am not satisfied with that, but I do keep it in mind in my work.
Stephen, thank you for your reply to my comments.
You wrote, “…. I think we should also extend mercy to our leaders in this matter. I do not envy the heirarchy in their call to address this multipronged, multilayered and emotionally charged problem where everyone, straight and gay, is both involved, particularly feeling that the very definition of their orientation and their love is being defined.”
Mercy might come in the form of a recognition that, in regards to this particular issue, the hierarchy clearly lacks the life experience to serve as leaders. If you’ll forgive the clumsy pun, what we see in this specific case is an example of the Peter Principle at work.
While the hierarchy struggles with this learning experience, we might reserve most of our focus and concern for the actual victims, the gay community. We might recall that they have been unjustly oppressed for centuries, a crime which has at least in part been rationalized by Christian dogmas which the Catholic hierarchy continues to sell to this day.
Phil,
Mercy, to my understanding, need not be reserved for those I believe to be “right,” but can and should be extended to everyone. The Church, even the Pope, is also caught in a system that is imperfect in terms of God’s grace. No one can just wave a wand and change our history or our dogma, and they are faced not just with leading US Catholics, who according to polling support gay marriage at roughly 52%, but the whole world. I think to throw some blanket indictment against the Church, which is only one organization of many that has developed from a heteronormative cluster of cultures, denies us the nuanced approach to engage the Church and even those we feel are not treated well by the Church. I can’t say I agree with the “oppression” language you are using, as it does not speak to the complex approach of the Church I described above.
Also, I wonder what life or professional experience would be sufficient to prepare a Bishop, the Curia or even the Pope, to adequately handle complete integration of our gay brothers and sisters into Church life? You use the term “Peter Principle” but, to my knowledge, that term is reserved for someone who tries and fails to do something. Our Bishops have not been called to, not have they tried to comprehensively address homosexuals in a comprehensive way, but have relied on a reactive strategy, which doesn’t serve anyone. Had the Church not had a 2000 years history of being slow to change and reacting to crises, rather than acting proactively, maybe we could make your assertion, but as it stands, our Church is being itself right now. Only we, the faithful, can be of help
Hi Stephen, thank you for replying to my words with your very articulate comments.
It is indeed a challenge to find the right tone with which to approach this issue, and I don’t claim to have found the perfect notes.
Perhaps as is so often is the case, it is a balance which is needed, and maybe we can draw useful examples from history.
Those who didn’t live through the sixties sometimes mistakenly believe that it was Martin Luther King’s peaceful patient outreach which brought the changes we now enjoy. The reality is more complex.
Certainly King’s Christian approach to the challenge of racism was very important, indeed crucial. But it wasn’t sufficient unto itself.
Just as the dominant white culture was being offered the hand of friendship and reconciliation by King, it was also being threatened by the fist of retribution by groups like the Black Panthers.
These two different voices combined created what we might refer to as a classic and effective “good cop – bad cop” routine. It was the two voices together which presented the dominant culture with a clear choice between social peace and war. It was the clarity of that choice that brought the change.
I believe it’s important for Catholics to have a personal experience of how our words and policies would feel if they were being applied by others to us.
How would it feel to be in the minority, hearing much of a dominant culture repeatedly labeling Catholic sex as a sin, an abomination, deserving of eternal punishment etc? It’s only by having these strong phrases, which we ourselves invented, applied to ourselves, that we can be fully informed on this issue.
How would it feel if the dominant culture was having significant success in preventing Catholics from legally marrying other Catholics? How polite would we wish for the conversation to be then? It’s only by honestly addressing and answering such questions that we can meaningfully conduct a search for the appropriate tone.
Perhaps your personality is more Martin Luther King in nature. I respect that, and agree there is a place for that tone in this dialog.
Perhaps my personality is more Malcolm X in nature. Most likely much of that adamant tone arises from flaws in my character, which I do acknowledge.
But nonetheless, the simple fact is that millions of innocent people have been unjustly victimized for centuries, and it’s entirely reasonable that their patience has finally been exhausted.
In light of these sad facts, I sincerely believe that in such circumstances ornery loud jerks such as myself can play a useful role in complimenting voices such as your own.
We might recall that Jesus himself was no stranger to righteous outrage, and did have being a nice guy as his exclusive focus.
PS: Oops, did _NOT_ have being a nice guy as his exclusive focus. Apologies…