Catholics Should Support Civil Partnerships, in Church.

December 7, 2011 — Terence Weldon

At the Catholic Herald, William Oddie is on another rant about Archbishop Nichols and civil partnerships. As usual, he stokes the fires of his and his readers’ anger with several misrepresentation of facts, but buried in the hysteria he quotes, then dismisses, an important observation by the Archbishop.

Archbishop Nichols said the key distinction between civil partnerships and marriage is that the former does not “in law contain a required element of sexual relationships”.

“Same-sex partnerships are not marriage because they have no root in a sexual relationship, which marriage does,” he explained. “And that’s the distinction that I think it’s important for us to understand, that marriage is built on the sexual partnership between a man and a woman which is open to children to their nurture and education.”

Oddie describes this claim, that British civil partnerships are not sexual, as “preposterous”, and of course it is true that in practice, the majority are sexual relationships – just as most other non-familial, permanent, cohabiting relationships between two adults are sexual But that is not the point. What matters, and should matter particularly to the Catholic Church, is that not all are, nor need they be. For this reason, the Catholic Church should be endorsing, not opposing, civil partnerships, particularly to protect and support those gay and lesbian Catholics who aim to live in full accordance with CDF doctrine on homosexuality, and its expectation of absolute celibacy.

Civil partnership: Why not in church?

When Pope Benedict was asked about clerical celibacy in the book length interview published as  ”Light of the World”, he observed that celibacy is difficult, but “becomes possible” when lived in a supportive community. He was referring specifically to clergy, but the same principle applies to lay men and women – for them, living and working in the secular world, absolute celibacy is possibly even more difficult than it is for priests. For them, what is the alternative to a lonely and solitary life?

One would think that one solution, in keeping with the Pope’s observation, could be to live in partnership with another of like mind. For such a couple, the legal recognition and protection offered by a civil partnership brings obvious benefits. Are you seriously suggesting that these benefits should be denied to celibate gay men and women should be forced to live entirely alone, or if they form a relationship with another for companionship and support, should be denied these benefits, simply because the majority of couples in these partnerships are in fact sexual?

When I placed the observation above in the comments thread to Oddie’s post, I expected the usual torrent of dissenting response. In fact, there was only one.

 I don’t think anyone is suggesting that homosexuals should be compelled to live alone. However, unmarried *couples* should live separately. Or do you suggest that unmarried heterosexual couples should live together to provide mutual support to remain chaste prior to marriage?! This has not proven to be a successful formula for chastity. 

In other words, gay men and lesbians have no need to remain celibate – as long as they marry. As the writer is presumably expecting that this should not be to the people to who they feel a natural sexual attraction, to persons of the same biological sex, then they should simply marry someone of the opposite sex.

This is ludicrous. It’s a route that I tried, back in the days when I honestly strove to live strictly within the parameters of Catholic sexual teaching, in every respect. The inevitable result was that after an ill-advised marriage, two children soon arrived before we were properly ready to care for them. This was accompanied by my wife’s post-partem depression, triggering more severe underlying depression and a recurring problem with serious suicide attempts and threatened attempts. On medical advice, we abandoned the rules on contraception. Beginning to contravene Church teaching, we drifted slowly away from first confession, then communion, then all religious observance.

Only after the wife’s final, very nearly completed suicide attempt and her subsequent leaving the family home, did I have the courage to face my own orientation, and come out. Ironically, when I subsequently formed a firm and committed relationship with a man, it was through his influence that I was gradually led back to the Church, and to an ever deeper exploration of faith and spirituality. With hindsight, I can now see what I could not during the troubled years of the marriage: my orientation, which I was trying to suppress in marriage, was undoubtedly an important contributing factor to my wife’s problems with depression.  I have also discovered what I did not know then. Even the CDF acknowledges somewhere, that for persons of a “deep-seated” same-sex attraction, marriage is not recommended, and may in constitute grounds for annulment.

No, opposite-sex marriage is NOT a suitable alternative to a solitary life for celibate gay men – it is not a solution for them, and is unfair on any wives they may choose.  Nor is it a satisfactory solution simplyto live alone.

Consider the verdict of God, in Genesis 2:18:

“Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him”

English Standard Version

And the Lord God said, It is not good for the man to be by himself: I will make one like himself as a help to him

And the Lord God said: It is not good for man to be alone: let us make him a help like unto himself.

 However, there is a solution solidly in the most respectable Catholic tradition, sadly now much neglected as the modern world’s obsession with sex sees all relationships as either sexual, or “mere” friendship. For much of its early history, both Eastern and Western branches of the Church recognized and used liturgical rites for church blessings of same-sex unions. In the Eastern Church, the rites were known as “adelphopoeisis” (extensively discussed by John Boswell in “Same- sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe”l. In the Western Church,they were known as” rites of sworn brotherhood”, discussed by Alan Bray in “The Friend”. Boswell argues that while not the same as conventional marriage, these rites shared many of its characteristics. Others argue that these “brotherhoods” were purely spiritual, not sexual. Later, St Aelred of Rievaulx argued for the value of explicitly spiritual friendship between pairs of men, and included iMn his writing on the subject images and language which is plainly erotic.

There has been a lot of wasted ink and screen pixels wasted in heated arguments over whether these unions, brotherhoods, and spiritual friendships were sexual, or were not. This argument is a red herring: it is probable that some were, some were not. That is irrelevant to my present purpose: t0 consider the case of a gay Catholic who wishes to live in compliance with Church teaching, and so remain celibate, but does not want to endure the difficulties of a solitary life. For such a person, if s/he can find a like-minded partner of the same sex, the ancient practice of entering a committed but celibate relationship would solve both problems. To emphasise the spiritual nature of the bond, it should be formally contracted, in front of witnesses, and liturgically blessed, in church.

In the UK (and some other countries and US states), the legal instrument already exists. All that is required is for the Church to take the obvious step, and to adopt again an ancient tradition: civil unions, in church. Failure to do so is a failure to support the most loyal and orthodox Catholic gay men and lesbians.

Recommended Books

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Share|
Posted in Gay Catholics/ Christians, marriage & family. Tags: , , , , . RSS feed for comments on this post.. TrackBack URL.
  • Mercredi

    You raise good points, but they do quite honestly make me nervous. Haha. I’m quite an orthodox Catholic woman for the most part, but I don’t see an issue with sex in same-sex relationships. My wife and I indeed have such a relationship. If this were allowed, then I personally would feel, well, left out (for lack of a more mature response). I’m assuming there would be other gay Catholics like me who would want their ceremony in church, but who don’t believe they should have to be celibate. And it would go against my moral conscience to simply lie and have said ceremony performed when celibacy wasn’t my intention. I do agree it make a better framework for support for celibate gay Catholics, but I’m under the impression (please forgive me if I’m wrong) that the majority of gay Catholics are not celibate. I feel like this could widen the divide, with those “good celibate homosexuals” been seen as better/holier than the rest. If you understand what I mean, haha.    

    • http://queering-the-church.com/blog/ Terence Weldon

      I agree that if civil partnerships in church were conditional on undertaking a promise of celibacy, this would create a problem. But then conventional marriages are not conditional on a promise to make babies, either. There is an expectation that couples should avoid contraception, but there is also an acceptance that people may depart from that, in conscience.
      Celibate or sexual, a committed relationship between two people is about more than sex. It is commitment, support, and love – and so has a spiritual dimension. The church should be supporting that, and leave sexual decisions to conscience: refusing to recognise the relationship is not going to prevent the sex, anyway. 

      Failure to do so leaves unresolved the difficulties that led me to write this post in the first place:  what realistic lifestyle does the church offer to loyal, orthodox lgbt Catholics who aim for celibacy, but find it difficult – and do not wish to live alone?

      • Mercredi

        I see where you are coming from :)
        It’s just that when you say, “loyal, orthodox lgbt Catholics”, it makes me feel like I’m not one, and I don’t see myself as disloyal. If this were to become a reality, it would make me, personally, even more stressed to conform to a celibate lifestyle. It seems like it would make non-conforming lgbt Catholics seem even ‘worse’. Perhaps I am being too pessimistic, and admittedly probably selfish too. As Promotor Fidei and I discussed, it would still be a step in the right direction, and a victory (even if not a ‘perfect’ one), but something about it does still make me feel sad. 

        • http://queering-the-church.com/blog/ Terence Weldon

          Loyal and orthodox. I also regard myself as loyal (although many would disagree). Everything that has led to this site comes from deep within Catholic tradition: prayer and spiritual direction, retreat experience, and from Ignatian spirituality, a search for mission,  combined with a commitment to justice. But nobody could describe me as orthodox.

          • Mercredi

            Ah, I see. I guess not. You have to agree with every little detail to be orthodox, right? I suppose there are not many like that. I probably think that’s a good thing, though, because I do believe change needs to happen. Thanks for clearing up what you meant; I know I am defensive about this sort of thing, because I always have my guard up about possible attacks to the loyalty of my faith, having been accused of “not really being Catholic” before (as I’m sure you probably have also encountered). I’m sorry if I come across as angry or defensive, it wasn’t my intention. :)  

          • Promotor Fidei

            I used to be so ‘orthodox’ that I was a Sedevacantist for several years (I thought that Vatican 2 and the ‘modern’ church, faithful, and popes were the ‘Abomination of Desolation’). The single reason why I no longer hold that belief is because of my sexual orientation. Being unable to accept myself as anything beyond corrupted dirt led me on a long and torturous path that brought me to a more ‘modernist’ and progressive out-look, and honestly, to be happy.. Basically, my sexuality is the soul reason that I am not a slave to the unhealthy Vatican I world-view; and while I still struggle with my sexuality and often resent it, I will always have it to thank for freeing me. 

            I just LOVE this discussion. It really warms my heart for the whole day. Nothing makes me more excited than the give and take from discussions like this. No one has all the pieces; we all have so much to share and so much to learn, and it is only in unison (making ourselves vulnerable and allowing the strengths of others to fill in for our own weaknesses) together that we can make a better world.
            :-) :-) :-)  

          • http://queering-the-church.com/blog/ Terence Weldon

            Whatever else you take away from this site. I pray that you will learn that not only does your sexuality NOT make you “corrupted dirt”, it should properly be seen as a gift. It is a gift in the first place because it is given to you by God, and so simply cannot be corruption; and it is a gift because, being outsiders to the majority. we have a different perspective to the rest of the world. This outsider view can often bring us insights that the others just cannot see. It is no co-incidence that so many non-Western societies equate non-conformist sexual or gender identity with special spiritual gifts, and honour these people as shamans.

            Remember:

            heterosexuality is not “normal”. It’s just common.

          • Promotor Fidei

            Thanks both of you :-) , you dont know how much that means. I still have regular relapses where I fall into overwhelming anxiety and panic that accepting my sexuality might have been the wrong path and that I am just ‘giving in to my fallen human nature’. My whole life has to be put on hold until it passes; but comments and support like this help me to resist that fear-filled voice in the back of my head from literally making me fall to my knees trembling in tears of hateful despair.
            In other words, your support is beyond value to me. :-)

          • Mercredi

            Wow, that sounds exactly like my life sometimes. Exactly like it. I’m so glad I’m not alone, and I’m really glad you aren’t either :)  

          • Promotor Fidei

            :-) :-)  
            *heart hug* :-) :-)

          • Mercredi

            I understand what you mean completely. I think my desire to be as ‘orthodox’ as possible largely stems from a desire to fit in, and to be supported in my beliefs. With the Vatican backing what I believe, it’s easier to believe it’s true (even when I myself can see the flaws in it). But on this particular matter, I can’t make concessions. I love the church, very much, but I do not want to deny my God-given nature because of the hierarchy’s misunderstanding of it. I’m glad that acceptance of your sexuality has made you happy :)  

            Once, not too long ago, I was sitting in church and just watching other people. I realised at that time, that my sexuality was a gift. Not just because it came from God and not even just because it was human sexuality (which I think is a gift to us in general) but because it allowed me to love. Not romantically (though that, too) but in more general, Christian terms. I realised, because of my position, just how harsh and crippling judging other people could be. Had I not been gay, I have some idea of the Catholic woman I would have become, and I don’t think it would have been pretty. My sexuality has helped to open my heart and my mind to others, and that truly is a wonderful gift.

            I’ve been loving this discussion too! :) It’s been very helpful. 

  • Promotor Fidei

    This is great! While it is obviously not ‘perfect’ (celibate part), but considering the fundamental problem of Catholic moral teaching being logic based rather than what ‘feels’ right, this is by far the best that I have seen and could be the best that we are able to achieve in the near future. 

    The problem is that Catholic moral theology on sex is built off of one single principle: sex is for procreation (and secondarily for union, but that is a side-effect of procreation (sex), which is important to child raising and so again back to procreation).
         The Church bans pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, homosexual sex, masturbation, oral and anal sex within the context of a heterosexual marriage, and contraception all because those acts are not using the sexual faculty for its correct/primary function: procreation
         If the church were to formally allow same-sex couples to be non celibate, then pure logic dictates that it would have to lift its ban on all concensual sexual acts including pre-marital sex, extra-marital sex, etc, etc. 
        While this may seem ridiculous, it is unfortunately the result of the focus on  logic/reasoning and the need for objectivity within Church teaching. It is easy to suggest that the teaching should be that consensual sex within a marriage should be ok, but the problem with that is it puts union and the mutual pleasure of the individuals as the the founding principle. It is then illogical (meaning subjective rather than objective) to ban pre- and extra- marital sex, or even limit marriage to two people because as long as the two (or more) people involved consent then they are meeting the requirement for union (bonding) and mutual pleasure.
         It feels awkward and counter-intuitive, but that is the world-view of the church: every detail is hashed out and everything is objective (meaning impersonal). The protestant churches do not have this objectivity focus, which is why some accept homosexual activity and some do not. Those that feel that homosexuality is wrong, but two married heterosexuals using contraception is not wrong is a purely subjective selection of what is sexually moral and what is not. They view the relationship between people of the same sex as what is sinful, where as the Catholic church views the sex as sinful not because it is gay sex but because it is not using the primary function to procreate. In Catholicism all sexual sins are equal because it is not the kind of sex that is bad but the purpose/point of the sex that is important.

    I have been struggling with a way to get around this problem without destroying the objective/Catholic character that first drew me to the church; but I have been unable to find a solution so far, and I know that many clergy have also been struggling with this; many feel that homosexuality and contraception are really not sins but they support the official stance because they are afraid of having no objective reason to ban things that they feel are truly wrong, “Better to ban more than what Jesus would than to allow what he would not”.  That is why I think that this article is a near breakthrough, because it is so far the only way to have same-sex unions without abolishing what makes the church catholic to begin with (as far as I or anyone else can see as of yet).

       People will no doubt find it unsatisfactory, but it is what is called a compromise (not getting everything you want but having more than you did before). When you have objectivity and universality (aka Catholic) that means that you have to include everyone and be fair (objective/impersonal rather than subjective). Having valid precedent is the ONLY way that the conservative elements of the church (who are also the ones with the most power) will even TOLERATE such a change, and even with the precedent they will still oppose it; but remember that tolerance is the first step to full acceptance!!!!
        It is a step forward, and people will just have to tolerate small and imperfect wins until the battle is finally one (and this would not be just a small win either, its one small but difficult step away from completion). I draw inspiration from history to keep me going when I start to become frustrated with issues of reform: Racial equality took around 200 years to achieve in the US. First, they had to halt the spread of slavery to new states; that was the first win. Years later, they had to have a war to abolish slavery; that was the second win. 100  years later, they were able to achieve full (legal) racial equality. 50 years after that, people’s attitudes progressed enough to where we now have an African-American President, which was unthinkable 50 years ago, let alone 250 years ago when the fight for racial equality first started. Had people left the country just because they didn’t see immediate progress and get exactly what they wanted instantly, racial equality would probably never have been achieved. Instead they stuck it out, gladly accepted every little win and concession that they could get, and justice was finally established. As for me, I would gladly accept the face of ‘public’ celibacy if it means that my community and family will accept me and my loved one united before God in a religious celebration :-) , the very idea of it excites me!!! .

    • Mercredi

      I find your take on the matter pretty interesting, and think that perhaps I was a little bit hasty, and probably selfish. Little victories are still victories, and lead to greater ones down the road. That’s totally true. I just, personally, would have an issue about ‘public’ celibacy (unless I suppose everyone knew/expected it from most, if not all, couples who had the ceremony. A secret but not really a secret, if you know what I mean). 

      When it comes to a change of stance on homosexuality though, from my point of view, I don’t know why it needs to change the teachings on pre-marital or extra-marital sex, or masturbation even. (Contraception I can understand). To me, the (possible) sin of these types of sex lies not in their lack of procreation, but rather the intent. Let me first say that these aren’t necessarily my views on these things, but are just possible reasons why the Vatican wouldn’t need to necessarily change their stance on all sexual acts once procreation isn’t the main focus. I hope you can follow what I’m trying to say, I’m so terrible at explaining myself. Masturbation, for example, could be argued is about lust, and self-satisfaction, which is a misuse of the sexual gift, meant for married (of whichever sex) couples. (To me, there is a difference between having sex with someone you love because of love, and because of lust. Though I think they can go together, and attraction and desire is definitely part of it, I don’t really think it’s moral to have sex with someone due to lust alone. Just my opinion, of course.) Along similar lines, it could be argued that sex should still be for marriage because it is a special gift- not one you are meant to share around, but an important form of bond making between two people who have made a special commitment to one another. You give yourself to them, and only them, and they to you, and only you, and it’s special. (I am such a sap, aren’t I? Haha)
      (As an aside, I thought anal and oral sex was considered to be all right, as long as ejaculation took place within the woman. Perhaps I am mistaken, though :) ).
      I suppose there are probably big flaws in my logic, but I, as a gay Catholic woman, don’t like the idea of pre-marital/extra-marital sex, but it doesn’t have anything to do with procreation. That said, perhaps that is due more to my sentimentality, and not because of morals. I don’t really know.  

      I do, however, agree that a change on this would result in a need to change elsewhere, and that that is very frightening for the hierarchy. It would probably lead to a healthier church, though. 

      • Promotor Fidei

        Hi Mercredi :-)  
          
           I completely understand how you feel. It does not seem like accepting homosexual sex should cause the foundation of the rest of the sexual moral teachings to be undermined; and it probably should not be that way. I feel that few Catholics would have a problem with allowing homosexuality but keeping the rest of the teachings; I wish it could be that way myself. I feel that the morality of sex SHOULD be based on intent and love.  
              Unfortunately though, the SOLE reason why homosexual sex is not accepted by the church is for the same reason that it does not accept masturbation or pre-marital sex – because it is not open to ‘procreation’ which is the whole point of sex/marriage (theologically speaking). In fact, even if a straight couple has a wedding ceremony, their marriage does not (technically) exist until they consummate it (aka vaginal penetration by the penis resulting in ejaculation and conception of a child).  That is why it was so important (in every time period until the 20th century) for arraigned marriages to produce a child as quickly as possible; because once there was a conception, the marriage was ‘sealed’ and neither party could back out.
             It seems ridiculous (and it really kind of is). It is all just a bunch of theological hair splitting (which is the kind of thing that Jesus criticized the Pharisees for), however it is exactly this type of thinking that has allowed the church to be the only institution, government, or organization to survive the fall of the Roman Empire, the dark ages, the middle-ages, the renaissance, or the enlightenment, and persist today in one piece (and probably with a little help from God ;-) .

             The Church is entirely ROMAN, that is to say, its understanding of marriage is the same as was held by the ancient Roman people (and most others societies of the time and well up until the 1800′s). That understanding of marriage is this: “The eternal union of a man and woman, maintained by love, for the purpose of producing and raising children.” Notice how love is purely secondary and is not the purpose of the marriage; the sole purpose for a marriage is to produce children. Which means that if you do not plan to have children then there is no point in getting married (according to that understanding). Love is just something that is nice to have because it strengthens the union and is so better for raising children, but it is not a criteria for marriage. You really should not get married if you do not love the other person, but love itself is not the primary purpose of marriage. That is why in historical dramas and stuff you hear people talking about getting married to someone because it is a “good match” (you gain something monetarily, politically, or socially and allow for the best raising of children). 
             Our modern view of marriage being for the mutual satisfaction of the two parties (where child bearing is a secondary/option purpose) did not become popular until the French Revolution (1790′s-early 1800s). “The Family On Trial in Revolutionary France” by Suzanne Desan, gives a detailed study of Western Society’s transitional view of marriage during this period; it was then that  the French government started allowing divorces (because it was about love satisfaction not about child-bearing). The turn of the 1800′s to 1900′s  is when the idea really took off. Like in Titanic, where Rose has the modern view of marriage being for love and satisfaction, while her mother has the traditional view that marriage is about duty, social-politics, and child bearing. She tells Rose that the high-society rich guy is a good match for her because it will ensure that she will always have everything she needs for the rest of her life (and more). Yet Rose wants to marry Jack because she is in-love with him. Neither her mother nor the rich-guy can understand why she would want to marry a poor nobody, because they have the traditional view of marriage.

             The tide seems to be shifting recently though and less clergy and lay people alike seem to care about theological legalities (probably do to them holding the modern view of marriage for love and satisfaction). That is why I think that this ‘brother/sister-making’ ceremony is a major step forward and the best that we can do at the present; that is until someone can come up with a way to bridge the legal-theological gap between the traditional view of sex and marriage with the modern view of sex and marriage without major collateral damage (or until the entire church in unison decides on a new sexual theology). 

        Anyways, sorry to bore you with the a legalistic history lecture. I wish you and your wife the absolute best in love and happiness! :-)
         

        • Mercredi

          Hey :)  
          You didn’t bore me in the slightest, and thanks for the well-wishes :) I was just under the impression (for whatever reason) that while procreation was a major factor behind the teachings on issues such as masturbation, I thought things like self-gratification/lust etc were also taught as reasons why you shouldn’t do it. I don’t know why I thought this, though! It makes sense to me, though. 

          Thanks for the explanations :) I wish you all the best too <3 

    • http://queering-the-church.com/blog/ Terence Weldon

      Hi, PF. Glad you found this stimulating. You have put your finger on it: the core of the problem is the idea that every sexual act must be open to procreation. As long as the ideologues cling to that, everything else must follow. The problem is that this foundational principle is up to maggots: it just does not stand up to scrutiny. It is not supported by Scripture, it is not supported by what science teaches us about sexuality, and it is not supported by the experience of ordinary adults with real-life experience of loving sexual relationships. It is an entirely artificial creation of men in ivory towers, deprived of sexual experience themselves. What else can one expect?

      Fortunately, other voices are now being heard, and considered. With a steadily increasing number of lay people, including married and single, men and women, gay and straight, studying and teaching theology, it is correspondingly difficult for the authorized theologians of the Church to continue ignoring sexual realities. Change is bound to come, and (I believe) quite soon. 

      The only question is not whether the Church will change sexual doctrine, but how will it manage to do so, undoing the clear stipulations of the Catechism and centuries of teaching, without losing face.

      • Promotor Fidei

        Thanks for the support! Thank you for pointing out what I failed to: the eminence of change that includes human experience and science in the role of sexual theology. 

         One detail I would put forward, (that is really just nitpicking, due to my overly-techincal training), is that the traditional understanding was not simply ‘invented’ by white-tower clerics. It was the result of the earliest christian communities viewing celibacy as superior to marriage and that Christ was returning within a few years/decades. As they started to realize that christ was not returning immediately, they begrudgingly began to accept sex only for the purposes of population maintenance (procreation), they saw it as a ‘necessary evil’, like taxes. That combined with the pre-existing (pre-christian) view of marriage held by Roman society (and the merger of high-brow anti-sex greek philosophies), resulted in the current theology. My point is: I do not feel that they should be blamed, because they are merely holding up what they have been taught; but it is exactly their deprivation of sexual experience that you rightly stressed (and that I left-out) that prevents them from seeing the flaws of the world-view that has been engrained in them. 

«
»

Switch to our mobile site