1.1 Why is this so important? What is at stake?
The question of homosexual marriage involves much more than just the question
of whether a homosexual couple should be married. How one falls on this
issue carries a great deal of ramifications that need to be considered. We
all know that our decisions have consequences, and we need to make our choices
based on the consequences they will bring about. Therefore, I have
compiled a short list of the potential fallouts tied to our stance on gay
marriage.
I would argue that
1.2 Legal disclaimer
With all
that said, here is the legal disclaimer.
I am not speaking for the Church in any official fashion. What I write here is cannot be construed as
the end-all, be-all teaching of the Catholic Church. It is, however, the most accurate
representation of the many documents and philosophy that our Church teaches
that I can come up with in such a short article. Further, this article is short. I started to write out more full treaties,
and it was 5 pages before I even got through even the most basic understandings
of how the we view the human body. So, with that said, there are whole sources
behind each of the claims made, and if you would like further clarification,
let me know and I’d be glad to give them to you.
1.3 Resources
I'll try to add resources here for you to look up:
- Excellent article on the
dignity of the human person and the
current state of things.
2.0
What is marriage?
Before we can begin any meaningful discussion of homosexual
marriage, we must first start with what marriage is in the first place. For all the wrangling, fighting, yelling,
name-calling that we hear on this; I have yet to hear a person even try to give
a definition of what marriage is besides ‘It’s just common sense.’ The appeal to ‘it’s just common sense’
doesn’t hold much weight in a philosophical or theological argument; and I
don’t think it should hold weight elsewhere either. So, let’s start unpacking the concept of
marriage.
2.0.1 Point of Departure
In order to even begin this talk, we should spell out some
assumptions. Clearly, I will be writing
from a standpoint of faith. But I will
try to keep this discussion as reasonable and clear as possible. In writing this article, I find that in order
to define marriage, it is inherently and totally linked to our notions of who
the human person is, what the bond of marriage is and the nature of our
sexuality. Marriage is not a physical
reality like the temperature water freezes at, or something that we understand
from a purely empirical approach. It is
rooted in, and only exists in the uniqueness of the human condition. It is found nowhere else in nature. In defining marriage we start talking about
the ultimate value and purpose of a human being, which touches on the matters
of faith and belief as much as the demonstrable fact of existence you can prove
empirically. This doesn’t mean we can’t
be logical and orderly, but it does mean that we can’t use the same empirical
lens.
Someone brought up the very good point brought up about the
fundamental separation of church and state that our constitution demands. I would be the first to say that this is a
good thing; and a value that is supported by the theology of what our church
believes. However, when the separation
of church and state was written in our laws, it was designed to prohibit the
state from publicly sanctioning a particular church/religion as its official
religion of the land. This does not mean
that we should ban the influence or use of our spirituality and beliefs to
influence or inform our decisions and opinions brought into the democratic
realm. The purpose and greatness of
democracy is exactly that every voice can be heard. Indeed, I would claim that to take that kind
of radical separation would be contrary to the democratic process. Why?
Because if I don’t allow my deepest convictions and beliefs to be
expressed in the democratic forum - I am actually committing and act of censorship
on myself and others – an act that is prohibited by our legal system. We have again and again protected the rights of even
the most radical elements of our society (KKK, Black Panters, etc) voice their
political and social opinions publicly and openly; why not for Christian ethics?
The beauty of our democratic system is that we all have the right and power to
speak our minds and then let people decide to agree or disagree with us. I would be very afraid of a system
that would start assigning value to the rights and dignity to a human person
(which is what our laws do) if we can only talk about them in a specific way –
devoid of any and all religious convictions a person might hold - whether they
be Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, Muslim or Atheist. And
isn’t such banning censorship? What
purpose does freedom of religion mean then?
If religious beliefs are banned from the public forum, then on what
basis would we then define such difficult topics as marriage, rights,
happiness, the good of humanity, etc? Many of the realities of our human lives are
inherently not necessitated by nature (outside of food and shelter), but by
what brings the greatest good and fullest happiness to our complex selves. It does not take much research to
discover that those who founded this nation and wrote its constitution and bill
of rights were people full of faith – and used that faith to help shape and define
the highest laws of this land. So too
should each persons religious convictions be allowed to be expressed – even if
we do not agree.
2.1 The Dignity of the Human Person
In order to understand what marriage is takes its roots from
the human person themselves. The current
Pope John Paul II has written what is to surely become a historical document
called The Theology of the Body in which he lays out a complete understanding
of the dignity of the human person. I
will leave this excellent, but lengthy document up to you to find on the
internet. But in this document, He
describes the nature of our sexuality – and that starts from the most basic
realization that people do not come in one form – instead they are two – male
and female. Now a Christian holds that
when God created the world, He created it good – which means that all the things
in it were good as well: including men and women, trees, dogs, rocks, stars,
quarks, etc. This means that the fact
that we have a sexual nature built right into the very fabric of our beings –
and it is a good and holy thing – just like the beauty of nature and warm
summer days. However, just like our
bodies can be damaged if we abuse them or use them wrongly: our eyes blinded,
our bones broken; so too our sexuality.
There is certainly a right way and a wrong way to use our bodies. We learn some of this by trial and error, but
others are harder to define – to what specific things we are to develop our
minds and talents towards. But, there is
a way to discover these things – and here is where philosophy can come to our
help.
2.2 Knowing Purpose
People have long used philosophy to aid in discovering
truth. More recently, science has also
been helping to unveil truth; and we try to embrace, clarify and sift
through all this new information.
However, one of the essential tools to discovering the right purpose of
something was outlined by Aristotle.
Aristotle was a Greek philosopher well before the time of Christianity.
Aristotle said that you
could discover what something was by discovering its telos – its end – or its final
purpose. Let’s take a hammer for
example. I can use a hammer for a lot of
things: hammering nails, as a doorstop, or try to ride it like a car to my grandmother’s
house. For some tasks, the hammer works
well, for others, it fails miserably.
Yet, there is a specific task that it works the best for, a task that reveals the fullness of its design and
purpose: hammering or removing nails. At
this task, the beauty of all the features of the hammer come into full play and
express themselves completely:
the handle for leverage and grip, the metal head for driving nails, it’s shape,
the claw for pulling out bent nails, etc.
If I use the hammer as a door-stop, it might function ok in some
circumstances, but it might fail miserably on a slippery linoleum floor. But when our hammer is used as a doorstop, some of
the parts of it won't be necessary or used at all. Our hammer could just
as easily be replaced by a brick. So when we only see the use of our
hammer as a doorstop, most of the beauty and features of the hammer lose their
meaning and value. The claw could be broken off, the handle snapped in two
and it would do this job as doorstop just as well. It just simply isn’t meant to be a doorstop;
though I might use it as such and things will sort of work. And as for riding it to my grandmother’s
house, well, it doesn’t do the job at all.
The whole point of this is that all the things have a purpose and
a role in the totality of the universe and in God’s plan. Sometimes that purpose is simple, other times
complex. In looking at the human person,
Aristotle tried to discover what the human purpose is. Aristotle noted that humans have a faculty
unlike any other in the created universe: the ability to reason. So powerful and unique is that intellect,
that only human beings are able to plumb the very depths of creation from the
smallest quark to the totality of the universe itself. This same technique of discovery can be used
to divine what the purpose of our sexual natures are
for.
2.3 Purpose of Our Human Sexuality
Now, what is the purpose of human sexuality? Why are do we all seem to fall into these
hard-wired forms of male or female? What
purpose could it serve? In looking at
our sexual difference (male/female) we discover that these differences do not
inherently differentiate males/females in use of reason, loving, growing,
making music, driving a car, speaking publicly, building a house, playing soccer
and so forth, etc. (though I would agree with many psychologist and plenty of
anecdotal evidence that would say that the degree and style that these things
are done/not done correlated differently between the different sexes). No, the purpose and reason for the difference
between male and female is not in any of those functions; but instead are
primarily and pretty much exclusively different for the purposes of
reproduction. Well, you might say ‘duh!’
anybody could tell you that; but this carries a tremendous package of
implications. This means that our
sexuality is primarily and ordered towards procreation and the bringing of new
life into the world. Think about our hammer
example again. If our sexuality is fully and properly ordered to its fullest
end, then it will be ordered towards procreation. It will reach its most beautiful and complete
expression in the creation of new life (just ask new parents in the delivery
room). It will also fulfill the wholeness of our
sexuality in every way: emotionally, biologically, mentally, etc. No part
of our sexuality will be left unfulfilled.
Does this mean that we cannot use
our sexuality for other things? It certainly
it does – just as our hammer can be used for many different purposes. But we won’t be expressing the fullness of the
gift, which inherently means we are not reaching the full power, happiness and
fulfillment of
our sexuality - and we will be hurting others or ourselves.
When we do not fulfill part of our sexuality, it leaves a very real hole.
This kind of 'hole' is like tying our legs together with shackles and a chain
that restricts us. We could easily run to the finish line, but with the
shackles, it is a frustrating and slow process because it leaves us knowing we
could do better. If we don't use our minds to their fullest
extent we are able, we will most likely make our own lives more miserable via
terrible choices, poor jobs, etc. Just like we encourage kids to finish
high school and consider it a real loss when they don't with real life-long
consequences, we should urge each other to learn the fullness of our sexuality
or we'll also suffer the life-long consequences. If we misuse our sexuality, we
will most likely find our lives feeling empty, alone, betrayed, abandoned, or
unfulfilled because our sexuality is the force
that strives to enter deep relationship with others. This emptiness caused
by the hole in our lives can drive us to depression, sadness, sexually acting
out, loneliness, extra-marital affairs, which can lead to even further problems
like abortion, unwed parents, partners incapable of making a commitment to each
other, and a host of other manifestations related to shallow or
non-existent relationships that we crave so deeply to give meaning to our lives.
Our sexuality is far more than just a
physical reality. Our sexuality also
touches all parts of our adult life.
After puberty, we all begin to have strong emotional and psychological
influences from our sexuality as well.
They drive us to do many silly things at times (remember those teenage
years). Yet, we learn how to integrate
all those powerful responses into our life – and a whole new world of
relationships open to us that didn’t exist when we were children. We do not deny or repress our sexuality, but
learn how to use the powerful influences and urges in our life to form the most
profound and deep relationships. That is
why if we simply use our sexuality as a tool, or worse a weapon, it has
profound and awful impacts on the emotions and psychological wellbeing of
others and ourselves. Our sexuality is a
complex relationship between our bodies and our very souls, psyche, and minds. Therefore, it is essential that we understand
our sexuality and learn not to let it master us; or we’ll become its slave and
end up unfulfilled, empty, or even in all kinds of disordered and potentially deadly activities with our
sexuality.
3.0 So why marriage?
3.1 The Pattern of Marriage
Since our sexuality involves both our minds and our bodies
in complex relationship; it is difficult for us to make sure we are getting all
the messages clear in ourselves. If we
start reading and working with all the powerful urges of our biological and
psychological sexuality in a mature and understanding fashion, it becomes the
instrument for something truly amazing.
These impulses strive to create and live in relationships that go far
beyond the ordinary interactions each day – it becomes an expression of trust,
relationship, vulnerability, total self
giving solely for the good of the one it is drawn to. We can go beyond the
cost to ourselves in a complete and total way and can get beyond loving simply for our own happiness or to
use the other for self-gratification and reach a giving love that
lies in the lover. We do not become dependent on the other for our
happiness, our happiness comes from the giving itself. In this way, our
sexuality is self-transformative. It is precisely this desire of
our sexuality to completely transform us by expressing it which makes it the
most powerful part of our being. Our sexuality is seeks and orders us to
the transformation of ourselves into love itself.
This kind of radical self-giving isn’t just random or just a
nice thing – but it was meant to open us to another new world of
understanding about ourselves, others, our relationships, and about the wholeness of creation. God so loved his human children (us) that he
wished to endow them with a special gift – the ability to know the union and
joy of creating. This desire to create takes
incomplete form in our creating bridges, building cars, art, or sewing a
nice quilt - but reaches it's highest expression in our ability to be co-creators with God in
making new life. Our sexuality drives us
to desire a complete union, the total giving of the self to the another person solely
for their good and they give
themselves in the same way to us. This
is an exact mirror of the love God has for each of us, and yet another way we
are created in His image. In the total giving
of self that our sexuality drives us to; we are patterned after the unity of
person, purpose, and presence in God (The Trinity) – a union so full that can do nothing but
pour out its abundance in an act of love so great that it creates new life to
the world. In our sexuality, God can
manifest Himself and allows us to be co-creators of new life with him. Wow.
That’s what our sexuality is patterned after.
Yet, this kind of self-giving can only reach its fullest
expression in a completely unique and complete giving to one person alone. One cannot open to full giving or full
vulnerability if there is always the possibility of the other person changing
their minds, or if the spouse is divided between two or more people in this kind of giving. The very nature of total gift implies an
exclusive relationship. However, since we often misreading of desires or
want to please ourselves first, there is always the possibility of betrayal or
selfishness; and sadly we
see the results of that in our lives.
So, a special union was created between men and women – a bond of
exclusive relationship that allowed them to express their sexuality fully, completely, and in a way that displayed the full beauty and purpose
inherent in the sexual gift given to the human person and
expresses the complete fullness of
their forms as male and female.
In recognizing the truly mystical reality that this kind of
relationship is, the Church recognized that this kind of relationship was
beyond mere human invention and support.
We cannot live this way on our own.
Instead, the sacrament of marriage was instituted/recognized. A complete description of a sacrament would
go for pages, but sufficed to say, a sacrament brings the invisible mystery of
God’s presence and power to us in a finite sign. The sacrament of marriage specially
consecrates and opens the couple – via their promises to each other – to each
other and they open themselves to God’s help (grace) and God’s working through
them. Thus the two are made one in God,
and together they are transformed and held together by not their efforts, but
by God being present in them. For the
sacrament, the sign is the couple we just described, and the power and presence
of God is the transformative and self-giving love we are turned into.
Marriage, therefore, is the union of two persons that allows God to
express His presence and saving power through their special relationship
(including the their sexuality) and at the same time allowing the human person
to fully express their sexual gift –
with all the emotional and physical realities realized.
So why the heck to I keep italicizing the words fully
express, complete fullness and so forth when referring
to our sexuality in marriage? With our
sexuality, like our hammer example, this does not mean that we cannot abuse,
misuse or only partially express our gift of sexuality. We can use the gifts of our sexuality in many
ways – from the blatantly destructive (rape, sexual coercion, etc) to the
fullness of expression: the creation of new life and expression of the
relational powers of our sexuality. The
consequences and results of being in relationships that do not allow us to fully
express our sexual are real: relationships of convenience (one night stands) and
lack of commitment, broken
families, sexual abuse and coercion, single parenthood, etc. Unless we understand our sexuality correctly,
these problems will continue and we will grow in unhappiness, loneliness,
sadness and hopelessness while at the same time subjecting our children to these
same realities. That is why one must strive for
the fullest expression of our sexuality. It is ironic, but by allowing a
much more permissive atmosphere of 'anything goes' sexuality, we have actually
set up ideas of sexuality that are actually more repressive than the Wally and
June Cleaver mentality of the 50's. It doesn't take much looking around to
see that the trending of our current society isn't headed towards a more and
more happy and emotionally well-adjusted society. This is why the Catholic can only call us to our fullest expression of the gifts He has
given us in order to find our peace, love and freedom; and so we always strive
for that fullest expression of our total selves – mind, body, abilities,
talents, skills, and sexuality. But not
just for ourselves, our sexuality drives us to do so in relationship. Each person has a uniqueness that when fully
expressed complements all the other gifts given to all the others in the
world. Our sexuality drives us to give
ourselves completely for the good of the other person – so they can realize their
highest good by doing so in return.
Imagine a world in which we all fully expressed our physical abilities,
professional skills, artistic talent, and joys in total self-giving for each other. Now you get a little glimpse of how God
imagines the world to be; and how we as Christians should too.
3.2 Consequences
Now we can make some statements about what our position is
- that we must not promote the incomplete expression of our sexuality. It has implications not just for what happens
in the bed-room; but hinders the complete fulfillment of the human person as a
whole; and hinders the plan of total unity in the world and hinders the 'pursuit
of happiness'. That is why masturbation
is harmful to the person – since it directs the desire for union back at the
self. It is twisting the expression of
sexuality - our mind and bodies - towards our own gratification. This self-centeredness will not shape us into
the totally self-giving persons that can radically convert the world our seeks a
relationship with it. It instead drives us into a world of our own and
dissociated from others "I don't need them to feel good".
We cannot
promote unmarried sex or unmarried couples living together because that too is harmful for the person. Not just some times; but is harmful - all the time.
Why, because there is not a full commitment of the parties to each
other. This lack of full commitment displays a
lack of really giving oneself to the other, and there is always the inherent
possibility of the relationship breaking - especially when the couple does see
others making these promises to each other. The understanding of a promise
and hence the ability to really trust
each other is not there, and inherently a higher level of mistrust or
possibility of dissolving than when couples have promised total fidelity for
the rest of their lives. This realization can,
and often does, happen unconsciously. Nobody wants to grow old alone or to
invest the entirety of themselves to someone who reserves the right to walk out
the door when they feel like it. While this
doesn’t mean that those promises won't fail (we have all seen that); but they have at
least been made and a giving of the self is being attempted with all good
intents. Imagine if you promised
the next person you start dating that no physical stuff would occur until you
committed to each other. How might that
change the focus of the relationship?
What would that focus look like?
Can you see links to the transformative nature that totally fulfills and
allows each person to really express their true uniqueness?
Polygamy cannot be supported either, because
of the inherently non-exclusive nature of the giving inherently means that one
is not totally given to another; and the same doubts of distrust and fear can
creep in and prevent the total emptying of self to the other.
Finally, this is why we cannot promote
homosexuality and hence the marriage of such couples. From what we have discussed, can you figure
our why I might say that? The homosexual
act can not fulfill the total and complete meaning of that person’s
sexuality. There is inherently the
inability for new life to be created in the union. And when we orient ourselves to an incomplete
expression of our sexuality, we are inherently not fulfilling the fullness of
our sexuality and in some way leave us empty.
This inability to create new life is also the same reason we cannot support birth control.
But not does it leave one unfulfilled, it disrupt the self-transformative
nature of our giving. If you do not believe that gay couples feel a sense
of their sexuality not being fulfilled, why do so many of these couples still
desire to have children when the ''complete/fulfilling' homosexual relationship
physically prohibits it?
On a more practical note, when we do not
live our sexuality to its fullest - but settle for these kinds of incomplete
expressions of our sexuality - we will have lots of real social fall-outs.
By living our sexuality in a less than complete way, we are actually
repressing our sexuality. And if we repress ourselves, we will
ultimately be unsatisfied and desire something more from these incomplete
relationships that they cannot give. We will most likely become depressed,
feel empty, distrust, maybe even betrayed by our partner for not giving us
something they cannot because they will be missing a piece by their very
definitions. This can and has already cause infidelity, need for expensive
counseling, higher divorce rates, use of pornography, alcohol, drugs or other
addictions to fill the hole that our incomplete sexual expression did not and
can not fill by itself. Only when we enter into the kind of relationship
that can really fill the desires of our sexuality completely, will we not have
to turn elsewhere to fill a missing part. These are real consequences when
our sexuality does not reach its fullest expression.
On a religious note, as we look at ourselves in the sacramental
way (that the couple becomes a sign of God’s power and presence active in the
world), we distort God's image for all people – and fail to be a complete sign
when we live our sexuality out in a less than full way. The committed union of a man and woman is the closest
expression of God's love for us that can be witnessed in this life; and points
to the kind of complete union we will have with God in eternal life. We become like a distorted statue,
an
incomplete painting, or a faulty map that points to a life far beyond this lived
experience. It reduces hope and faith in our world and the world to come. Our acts of
self-giving will also be disassociated with the notion of giving that creates
new life in the world. It is exactly this kind of giving of self
completely that creates new life in the world that Jesus expressed when he died
on the cross for us.
3.3 Unanswered questions
Now, there are a couple of unanswered questions, and I can’t
answer them all here for the sake of the brevity of this article. But you are more than welcome to email me and
I’ll try to respond. You might say that
not all marital relationships are capable of creating new life, and certainly
not all sexual acts create new life.
Yes, very true, but there is always the possibility of that new life.
And even people that use birth control have reported that sex is
different when they were on birth control and when they were not. I would think that just knowing there is that
possibility creates a very different emotional bond and response – and as we
have seen, our sexuality is not just physical; but emotional too.
Again, there are more arguments to resolve, and I’ll put
them here as I get emails.
4.0 Legal
Implications/Ramifications
While no legal expert.
I found a great 1 page document that covers the very serious
ramifications that by even not passing this referendum would result in. Even if one does not agree with the reasons I
gave before, one must take a very strong look at the legal ramifications to our
justice, insurance, marriage and education systems.
If the ballot measure does not pass, it will most likely be
decided by a court whether gay marriage should be allowed. The consequences of such an event were
written up in a recent Oregonian article.
Here it is.
I would claim that without the proper understanding of
marriage that we outlined in this document, you would very quickly have to
discount marriage as an idea at all. What effect would that have on the social
structures of our society – and do you believe that it would truly provide us
with the tools we need to protect children, rights of a committed couple, or
protect men and women from emotionally or physically abusive relationships?
5.0 Summary
and Answers to Common Objections
5.1 It’s a right to get married – it’s a civil rights issue
I’m no legal expert, but it is a very simple fact that not
everyone has a right to be married to whomever they choose. Persons cannot marry people they are
biologically related to closely too, polygamy is prohibited, marriage to
another person while still married, and a lot of other reasons, but perhaps the
most revealing is that one must be of legal age to marry. Why do we prohibit these things? To protect the persons – sometimes even from
themselves and their own preferences.
Laws are created to protect the good of their citizens and as such are a
formative element that helps shape a society that allows all to live the best
way possible.
Someone noted that marriage is a strangely protected institution. It allows and affords members special rights
and privileges. This is true, and our
government is constantly doing so in many areas – tax cuts for businesses, tax
exempt status for charitable organizations, police are given special privileges
of arrest, use of deadly force, and so forth.
All kinds of special rights are granted by our government to all kinds
of groups. Why? Because our government made a decision that those
programs by their operation promote an even better civil society. By giving them special privileges, the
government is promoting their use and encouraging people to enter into that
kind of expression as a good for society and the individual. Now, just as anything else, it can be abused at
times, but as a whole I think they promote tremendous value. I would argue that the reason we protect marriage
is again because of its special reproductive role in society. Raising a child is a very difficult, time
consuming, and resource intensive prospect for a male and female. It is one that the society must encourage and
support or the country will literally disappear. Further, there are definitely social
consequences when children are not raised properly. In creating these protections, our government
is recognizing the special way in which the raising of children contributes to
our society and the needs of raising children well.
So, what is that best possible way of bringing persons into
the world? Well, that’s what we’ve been
fighting about for the ages. What is happiness, truth and goodness for everyone? I would claim that the lessons of Christianity
provide the best answers to these questions.
In looking at the current prohibitions to marriage in law, there was a
quantifiable harm was being done to individuals in those circumstances. Using our arguments about the purpose of
marriage and our sexuality, we can at least make a valid argument for why
homosexual marriages might be harmful in allowing a person to reach their
fullest happiness. One might also cite
the claims of studies by psychologist that prove homosexual relationships are
not as healthy for children as well. I
have not read these claims and cannot comment on the scientific research done;
but I know it is there. If you do not
like the arguments I have put out, one scientifically must acknowledge that we
have spelled out a valid reason for showing that homosexual marriages may
inherently not ordered to allow the fullness of our human lives to be
expressed; and even from a purely scientific standpoint this should make us
pause and really look carefully.
5.3 It doesn’t hurt anyone, don’t get one if you don’t want one.
All
involved on both sides of this issue realize there are tremendous social and
legal ramifications of allowing homosexual marriage; and we need to base our
decision on whether we believe that the fallout of these changes will really
create a better society for ourselves and for children to be raised in. My
whole position states that it is potentially very harmful because it starts shaping our
perceptions and vision for how to transform the world in to a more fully loving
place. To allow the practice is to give
validation to that sign. This sends a
conflicting signal about the nature of who God is and how we reach our greatest
happiness. On a practical level,
allowing such a measure would have far-reaching political, economic, and social
impact. All of which, I would claim, pull us more and more out of line with
what helps the person reach their true and fullest happiness.
Further, there have been scientific
studies that have shown that children raised in homes with one father and one
mother empirically produce children that have fewer psychological problems, lower
delinquency rates, and lower drug use.
There is at least some evidence that shows us that allowing homosexual
marriages would hurt someone; and it should be looked at very carefully and
with much study before we make such a radical and far reaching change in our
legal and social institutions. We don't go out and buy sort-of safe/only
partly protects car seats for our kids, we should not allow for 'sorta-works'
when giving them parental patterns that will affect the rest of their lives.
5.4 If two people really love each other, why not? Don’t they love each other just as much, if
not more, than other married people?
You bet they can love each other that much and I certainly
hope that it is possible! Why do I hope
that? Because I’m looking at becoming a
celibate priest – and if it is not possible to express my love fully, then
what’s the point? Ahhh
you say! Now with all that great arguing
about the only full expression of our sexuality is one that creates new life,
it seems I have backed myself into a corner.
How does celibacy make sense at all?
I will keep this short, but outline how it is just as full and complete
an expression as found in marriage.
As a priest, I will (someday) take vows and be specially
consecrated to allow God to be present in and work through me – just as a
married couple does. If we look back at
the definition of sexuality we gave earlier, we will see that it has both
physical but emotional components to it.
I would argue the vowed celibate (which is anyone who has decided not to
have sex outside of marriage – though it is a specially consecrated decision
for life in the religious who takes vows) in recognizing and fully
understanding the sexual gift, can choose not to exercise the biologically
procreative method in order that the life-giving nature of their sexuality can
be expressed in qualitatively different way.
In giving oneself sexually in marriage, one enters voluntarily into an
exclusive relationship – and hence the life-giving nature of the relationship
is expressed in the creation of new physical life. This carries along with it very real and
long-term obligations which prohibits the couple from certain kinds of
relationships with others. But when one,
with full understanding of their sexuality (physical and emotional) and those
long-term obligations found in the married expression of physical sexuality,
decides to dedicate their procreative physical component to a ‘reserved’ state,
I would argue that they are no less expressing their physical sexuality. It’s kind of like the saying, by not making a
choice; you have still made a choice. In
deciding not to exercise your physical sexuality in the reproductively
biological way, I am also changing the mode my emotional sexuality expresses
itself. In vowed celibacy, one will
publicly announced to exercise my physical, biologically reproductive sexuality
in a ‘reserved’ status (to God) I have opened and qualitatively changed
the way I express the totality of my sexuality in a new way. I have giving my sexuality - in a complete way to a
God that I have the most deep, personal, and profound relationship with. This very real expression of biologically
reproductive sexuality now frees my emotional sexuality and my very lifestyle
to be able to freely and fully give my total self to a variety of persons as
the need allows in a way and depth a married person could not.
I have experienced this reality first hand,
and so have those that have worked with women who have been sexually
abused. In others knowing that there is
no possibility of physical, reproductive relationship – it allows me to be
emotionally and in all other ways (besides physically sexual) present to
the person. By expressing my sexuality
in this ‘reserved’ state (committed marriage to God), I have found the relationships with men, and
especially relationship with women, to become much more deep, personal, and
fulfilling. It is actually freeing. The expression of my sexuality in the
reserved state is a real expression of it – I can attest to that. Not only me, but others clearly recognize it
as well. In working with sexually abused
women, I have first hand had counselors and priest friends in sessions tell me
that when women ask for a priest, they will very often not settle for anything
but a Catholic priest – whether the woman is Catholic, another faith, or no
faith at all. This really shocked
me. When I asked the team that worked
with these women why, these counselors told me that it was specifically
because these men were vowed celibate.
There was a way for them to reconnect their relationships with men and
even God without danger of the very thing that caused the hurt being a
factor. They were ‘safe’ to rebuild
relationships with these celibate men by building this one bridge to the gender
through this person who was actively exercising his physical sexuality in a celibate
way. In fact, the women that ran these
programs said their most productive sessions were always when Catholic priests
were simply present to represent a bridge.
And these program leaders that I talked too weren’t even Catholic. If this isn’t life-giving transformation like
we discussed above, I don’t know what is.
Persons that are virgins (all of us initially) are still
fully expressing their sexuality and are also still a sign in the sacramental
sense. For those who are unmarried and
unprofessed religiously, it is often said they are be being faithful to their
future spouse or celibate vocation. Their sexuality has been given to their
spouses in a future way. While not
necessarily being bound to another exclusively at this point, they are still expressing
their physical sexuality in the reserved state and I described above. They can still truly bring new life into the
world in those that they serve as the vowed celibate can. Again, not in the physical sense of a baby,
but via their total, self-giving love that heals the wounded, comforts the
sorrowing brings people out of addictions, and so forth. They allow the healing power of God to flow
through them to create new life in others.
An important thing in all of this is to note that to be
fully celibate is to be in self-knowledge of ones own sexuality, have the
knowledge of the goodness of marriage and yet then freely choose the celibate
state. Celibacy can never be a
repression or forced decision. If that
is so, it will never become the life-giving sign that makes it what it should
be. In a way, it is no different than
being unfaithful to a spouse.
To bring this back the main topic, we again see that this is
not how a homosexual relationship is ordered.
It is still trying to express the physical sexual act in the biological
method, but it cannot express the possibility of bringing new life in this
radical way as the physically biological method implies it should; and the
person is also no longer free to enter the kinds of relationship that the vowed
celibate is. The freedom to express the
inherent life-giving nature of their physical sexuality is closed to a
degree. This does not mean the
relationship can not be very good or very fulfilling; but it will inherently be
missing a part of its fullness and complete expression.
As a final note from our life of faith, marriage and clerical
celibacy are two sides of the same coin that reveal the special kind of love
that God has. We all need to re-learn what we think love is by learning it
from God, and He gave us marriage and celebacy as concrete ways we could see His
kind of love. Clerical celibacy (indeed all types of celibacy) speak of
the reality that is to come. So much do I know that the deeper happiness
of heaven and God are a reality, I can (with God's help) become a sign that
points to it in this life.
5.5 Why is there only two ways (married, celibate state) to express our
sexuality?
In order to really
fulfill the person our sexuality must take a definite two-pronged shape of both
the expression of our physical sexuality AND the desire our sexuality to create
new life – not only new life in the world, but new life in ourselves too. Any
expression that totally addresses both elements of our sexuality can fulfill
us. Our sexuality is only part biological (procreation is just the purpose of
our physically sexual differentiation [male/female]) because that could be
carried out by anybody at any time. While procreation is what our physical
sexuality is ordered towards, that procreative element is also tied at its core
with the deepest human desire to create new life by that person making a radical
total gift of themselves to another. One can only make that kind of total gift
of self with a single partner – be it a spouse (future or current) or to God.
Yet, this life-giving desire is not just external, but internal as well. Part of the radical desire to give ourselves in a way that
creates new life in the outside world is that the giving will *transform
ourselves* into a new person in the process – a person who lives as a total outpouring
of love for the person they are promised too. At our cores, we all desire to
love and be loved. The life-giving desire of our sexuality isn’t just external for
others (though that certainly is a big part of it), but the desire of
life-giving also desires to bring about the total transformation of ourselves too. Into a person whose core
self is defined by giving themselves to another totally, unconditionally, and for
their good/pleasure/benefit – I become not my old self, but a new creation based totally in
love. I become love itself. The person who gives themselves like that experiences the total personal
transformation by experiencing the corresponding life-giving element that
creates: either in a baby or in the many celibate expressions. This is why
we often feel like we have received far more than we gave when we selflessly
give ourselves to another - even in simple ways. The giving and
the transformation are linked by the particular life-giving element it creates.
In unmarried couples, or polygamy, etc either there is a lack of total
dedication of self to the other – and the transformative power of the
self-giving is limited by a lack of trust. In gay marriage, the physical
expression that should be directed at biological life-giving experience is
missing, and hence that part of the transformative element of the self-giving is
missing. If you don’t think that desire to see our giving create new life
externally, why
do so many gay couples still desire children when their biology inherently
prevents it? The kind of marriage/sexual expression we have in mind is the kind
that totally fulfills. A gay couple is forced to adopt or artificially
inseminate – which is really just allowing another person sexually into the
relationship (cheating) and allowing someone else to have sex with a person
they’re not married to at the same time (adultery). There is no way around
it outside of adoption. Now, one could argue how is a gay
couple any different than a married couple that cannot have children because of
biological reasons. I would argue that it is still qualitatively different
because the intent of the relationship is different, and the expectations are
totally different. It’s one thing to know you cannot have children because of a
problem in the plumbing, but a total other to know it’s biologically
impossible. Again, this will shape the kind of self-giving that those involved
will be able to make.
5.6 It's a problem of discrimination. We should not suppress the
feelings/rights of such minorities (such as gay desire to be married).
Christianity would be a minority in some countries like China or India.
They would argue that the Gods of their cultures are clearly mandating their
beliefs; which would give them reasons to drive out or not to allow
Christianity. Making any minority group receive fewer legal
rights/recognition than the majority would be wrong. So that kind of
discrimination is wrong and by extension, the attitude of discrimination against
gay marriage.
The question of what is permitted as marriage civilly falls into the question
of social good. We do not use the word discriminate when we talk of
murderers. What if a murderer, rapist or robber told us that they were
being discriminated against because they wished to express their minority right
to murder, rape, or rob? This would be totally silly. It is not that
they are being discriminated against, but that their behavior is destructive to
others and themselves and cannot be expressed for the good of society.
Marriage is more than a recognition of a simple religious conviction - it is a
civil recognition of our societies need to procreate and raise children in an
ordered way. Of course, the government could just mandate that each male
donate sperm at 18 and each woman donate a certain number of years of her life
to have enough children in order to reach quotas - like civil service or a tour
of military service like in other countries. Thank goodness we do not.
Instead, we create protective structures in our laws that encourage the best
solutions to these needs via tax breaks, special rights and privileges, etc.
Marriage is recognized civilly for the needs of protecting the very difficult
needs and tasks of raising children and protecting the members of the union.
5.7 To say we aren't to use a body part to its fullest unless we are using
it for the one "intended" purpose is not logical. The most frequent
purposes of sex are the expression of love and the giving/receiving of pleasure
and intimacy. Our sexuality is not just for procreation, it can be an
expression of love in the giving/receiving pleasure open to people of different
or the same sex.
<response coming soon>
[email me with questions/arguments as well mattfife (at)
hotmail.com]