A reader has just asked, by way of a comment to an earlier post,
“Have just seen this film about Catholicism and homosexuality-what do you think?
http://vimeo.com/m/93079367 “
I had come across the same video earlier today, by way of a post at a Patheos blog, where Frank Weathers described it as “This may be the best 38 minutes and 14 seconds you’ll spend on the subject of the theology of the body”. I was sceptical but watched it anyway - and found myself working hard to suppress my anger and revulsion.
Here it is, anyway (with my response, below the fold):
The Third Way from Blackstone Films on Vimeo.
Weathers’ post had no provision for comments, but he referred to a fellow Catholic blogger at Patheos, Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, who had posted some responses of his own. Gobry was less enthusiastic, and made some important criticisms, which I share
- In particular, one very very important point: it doesn’t hesitate to admit that the Church has failed in many ways pastorally with homosexual person. This, I believe, is important. I do have some quibbles though.
- Firstly, at times, the video does veer a bit too close to “oh poor you” condescension. Gay people aren’t victims, or they’re not more victims than anybody else. They’re human.
- Secondly, the video seems close to endorsing, or at least uncritically repeats, dubious/pseudo-scientifical ideas about purported psychological origins of same sex attraction (my mother/father was distant, I didn’t get the same-sex attention I needed growing up and so it turned into same-sex attraction, etc.).
- More generally, not all SSA people experience the “gay lifestyle” as this addiction-like prison from which they need to be freed; many of them are quite comfortable in this lifestyle and experience no distress from their orientation. I don’t think this video will appeal to them.
When I first read his piece though, I was still angry with the video’s idiocy, and Weathers’ uncritical praise for it. Instead of responding to Gobry’s level - headed and balanced assessment, I responded directly to the video itself.
So, in reply to my reader who asked me what I think - here it is: the comment I placed earlier, at “Inebriate Me“
Excellent? Give me a break.
There is no “third way” in here - just the same - old, same - old,hate the sin but love the sinner. Far from being “faithful to Catholic teaching (all of it)”, it does nothing of the kind - because Catholic teaching on the subject is so riddled with internal contradictions, it is impossible to be faithful to all of it.
For example, John Paul’s renowned theology of the body makes it crystal clear that celibacy is a gift, which must not be imposed, but can only be embraced by those for whom it is possible. Yet the Catholic Church attempts to impose it absolutely on all gay men and lesbians.
The Catechism states clearly that we much all embrace our sexual identity - but when gay or lesbian Catholics do, as a simple matter of honesty and integrity, we risk being excluded from Catholic employment and lay ministry.
There is indeed a third way, as I have experienced in my own life - but it is not the way promoted in this video. It is however, a way that I have come to after extensive prayer, study and spiritual direction (including a six day silent, directed retreat of such intensity that my regular spiritual director (a Jesuit priest with a doctorate in spirituality) later described as a genuinely mystical experience, a direct encounter with God.
That third way, which has brought me to an ever deeper involvement in the life of the Church and engagement with the scriptures, is to accept the truth of something that Pope Benedict referred to, in a reflection on the execution and later rehabilitation of St Joan of Arc: that sometimes the theologians of the Church are simply wrong - and that on this matter, they clearly are so.
Related articles
- “God and the Gay Christian”: Religious Conservatives Are Running Scared. (queeringthechurch.com)
- EXCLUSIVE: Why Catholics Should Affirm Civil Marriage Equality (newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com)
- Robinson 1: Hetero/Homo, Catholic Sexual Teaching Stands (Or Falls) Together (queeringthechurch.com)
- The Biblical Case for Gay Marriage (queeringthechurch.com)
- How Quest is Promoting LGBT Catholic Integrity (queeringthechurch.com)
- Gay Priests: The Challenge of Honesty (queeringthechurch.com)
- Queer Catholics and the “Third Way” (Huffington Post)
- 10 Bible-Based Reasons Why Christians Should Love Homosexuality (queerty.com)
Thank you! Thank you for your reply and honesty. I knew you’d be aware of this film-you are the most up to the minute blog on faith and sexuality I’ve found. Keep up the hard work
Agreed. Love this blog!!!
Thanks.
The part that is loud and clear is that these people were in need of love and acceptance and found that within a chaste relationship with God. I’m not gay and no longer married. God asks the same relationship and communion with me, He calls me to be chaste. He calls me to focus on other things outside of my carnal desires. In this sacrifice I find deep peace and fulfillment. I watched David’s last statement more than once, his identity is wrapped up in his same sex attraction, he doesn’t label himself, nor does he define himself by his homosexuality. He is David.
I meant to say his identity *isn’t wrapped up
Sorry one last comment, God is asking a whole “nation” or tribe to be chaste…to be closer to Him. This makes me feel like gay people are even more special and I am special too because God is calling me to be chaste and close to Him, regardless of my attractions to the opposite sex. It puts us all on level ground.
That’s absurd. The Church doesn’t claim that YOU are automatically “called” to lifelong chastity.
Permanent. For always. NO sexual intimacy. Ever.
Some would feel that we should not give publicity to this kind of ‘ecclesiastical pornography’
What are you talking about?
That was my initial thinking too, Martin - but then I had a specific request from a reader for my thoughts. That same reader has since thanked me for posting my response.
My beef with TotB is that it is a blatant lie to assert that the teaching is ‘traditional.’ It is radically different from past teachings about sexuality and gender. It makes me think that liberals are those who are honest about contemporary influences on their thought and conservatives are those who lie about it. So the whole endeavor to be like ‘poor gays look at the holy sex you’re missing’ just makes me distrust the messenger.
I really liked the film. Just like heterosexual men and women are quite comfortable in their life doesn’t mean they are sin free. Comfortable doesn’t define a persons state of soul. . We are showing porn to kids in public schools and calling it Sex Ed (See the book “it’s perfectly normal”) Their is more sex abuse of children in the public schools than any institution, not to exempt the Catholic Church either - expose it all. But to teach a 10 year old this stuff? To show homosexual or heterosexual acts at to early age is wrong. Where is the outcry here? It was depicted in this film from those who were abused in their family turned towards homosexuality. We know homosexuality has a very high statistics of early childhood abused. Why?. We will see those who are gay attack the Catholic Church because they want them to conform to their life choices. Just like some in the church think it’s ok to use contraception. The church follows the spiritual and scriptural law - and has upheld their teaching opposing contraception and abortion. Some Catholics hate that. But the church won’t change it for that or this. God has spoken on this matter in the Bible - and he still loves us for all the distortions we bring as a broken human nature and a falling race. He is the way, and the truth and the life. I bet we see many more that struggle with SSA come back to the church when there is present with an internal struggle with homosexuality or men and women who struggle with pornography. Not only is it time for the separation of Sex and State in the school system, but for the Catholic church to offer healing through the sacraments and to speak up that their is another way if ONE choices… But those who choose to leave a gay lifestyle why are they ridiculed and attacked by the gay community for doing so. Why? .
“Some” in the church think it’s OK to use contraception? Get real. All the available evidence shows conclusively that it’s not just some, but by far the vast majority. Even in Africa, where there is the greatest cultural distrust of contraception, only about half of all Catholics agree with Vatican teaching on the subject. It’s also completely ridiculous to state that God spoke against abortion and contraception in the Bible. Can you find any verse that says so, directly?
Popularity of an idea doesn’t make it a good idea or good theology. There’s 1 verse in Scripture that makes reference to birth control: “Judah said to Onan, ‘Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.’ But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife he spilled the semen on the ground, lest he should give offspring to his brother. And what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord, (Gen.38: 8-10)
From the earliest time in the Church, it condemned birth control because sexual expression is meant to be fruitful and life giving.
In A.D. 195, Clement of Alexandria wrote, “Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted”
Hippolytus of Rome, Augustine, the First Council of Nicea all condemned birth control because it fundamentally changes the nature of sexuality is meant to be, namely life giving.
“John Paul’s renowned theology of the body makes it crystal clear that celibacy is a gift, which must not be imposed, but can only be embraced by those for whom it is possible. Yet the Catholic Church attempts to impose it absolutely on all gay men and lesbians.”
I think you are conflating chastity (which *eveyone* is called to) with celibacy (which only *some* are called to). Celibacy is a lifelong vow of sexual abstinence, whereas the form of chastity is dependant upon your state in life. For unmarried and unannulled divorced persons, chastity takes the form of sexual abstinence; for married persons it takes the form of a monogamous sexual relationship open to procreation with one’s spouse. Requiring chastity and requiring celibacy are two very different things; the church requires chastity, not celibacy (which is a specific calling).
Like celibacy, marriage requires a specific calling (to take a specific person as your spouse rather than espousing yourself to God via a specific religious order). People are not called “to marriage”, they are called “to marriage with a specific [marrigeable] person”. Some people find that person, some people don’t, and some people ardently desire someone that they cannot marry (such as a person who is already married, an unmarried person unwilling to abide by the terms of the marriage covenant, or a member of the same sex). No matter the circumstances, it boils down to the same thing: chastity (sexual abstinence) for the unmarried; chastity (sexual fidelity) for the married.
Everyone desires intimacy and everyone is free to pursue intimacy in their relationships with others; people who choose their friends wisely can find intimacy in spades. Sexual intimacy, however, is of a type reserved for one specific kind of relationship: marriage.
No, I am not confusing chastity and celibacy. “Celibacy” is the word that John Paul used in his text.
Yes, he did use the word celibacy in that particular passage; however, you subsequently claimed that “the Catholic Church attempts to impose it [celibacy] absolutely on all gay men and lesbians.” That is not accurate because it misunderstands what celibacy is. Celibacy is a vow to God, freely taken by an individual before God, as when religious brothers and sisters take their final vows. It cannot be imposed on someone against their will. Like marriage vows (which are also made freely before God), a vow of celibacy is irrevocable once made.
Chastity, on the other hand, is one of the virtues that every person is called to regardless of their individual circumstances, just as we are all called to the virtues of temperance, charity, diligence, patience, kindness, and humility. The opposite of each of these virtues are the vices lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, anger, envy, and pride.
We can all freely choose to pursue virtue or vice, but the Catholic church does not impose anything on us one way or the other. She offers God’s forgiveness, love, truth, and Christ’s very body for those who wish to accept them. It is we who seek to impose our will on Her when we demand that she change her teachings to suit our desires.
No, he was clearly not referring to celibacy as a vowed state - otherwise the context makes no sense at all. This is playing with semantics.
You can check the catechism if you do not believe me about the distinction. Every mention of “celibacy” refers to the vowed state, and that is what JPII is referring to when he states that celibacy is a particular calling.
Here is a translation from one of JPII’s1994 audiences (full text here: http://selfdefinition.org/celibacy/quotes/john-paul-2-chastity-for-the-sake-of-the-kingdom.htm): “According to Matthew, Jesus praised voluntary celibacy after he asserted the indissolubility of marriage. Since Jesus forbade husbands to divorce their wives, the disciples reacted: ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry’. And Jesus answered by giving the ‘it is not expedient to marry’ a deeper meaning: ‘Not all men can receive this precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it’ (Mt 19: 10-12).”
Celibacy refers to those who have freely made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom, permanently and irrevocably via their vows of celibacy. JPII goes on to distinguish between chastity and celibacy later in the same address, “For his part, the individual is required to make a deliberate act of will, conscious of the duty and the privilege of consecrated celibacy. This does not mean simply abstaining from marriage, nor an unmotivated and almost passive observance of the norms imposed by chastity. The act of renunciation has a positive aspect in the total dedication to the kingdom which implies absolute devotion to God ‘who is supremely loved’ and to the service of his kingdom. Therefore, the choice must be well-thought out and stem from a firm, conscious decision that has matured deep within the individual.”
Those of us that are unmarried but have not made these vows are called to chastity according to our state in life. In some cases, we will never achieve a state in life that permits sexual relations, but that is simply the reality of chastity that all unmarried/divorced men and women are called to. In colloquial terms, we are celibate, but in theological terms we are simply being chaste.
What specific passage of JPII’s are you referring to? Perhaps examining the exact quotation rather than paraphrasing it would be helpful to both of us.
I make the distinction between celibacy and chastity because you are correct that celibacy is a calling that can only be freely embraced by (not imposed upon) only those for whom it is possible. It is your inference from there that “celibacy” is being “imposed absolutely on all gay men and lesbians” that misunderstands what is being asked of them. They are not being forced to make vows of perpetual sexual abstinence (nor could they be). They are being asked to live continently in their unmarried state, just as all unmarried and divorced persons are asked to do. Unlike celibacy, the call to chastity is universal among the baptized.
Per the catechism, “All the baptized are called to chastity…’People should cultivate [chastity] in the way that is suited to their state of life. Some profess virginity or consecrated celibacy which enables them to give themselves to God alone with an undivided heart in a remarkable manner. Others live in the way prescribed for all by the moral law, whether they are married or single.’ Married people are called to live conjugal chastity; others practice chastity in continence.” (CCC 2348-2349)
Thank you CEB! This is what I try to explain to people in my life and with social pressures and constant bombarding of sex at every juncture it is almost unfathomable to most.
I do not have time right now to go right through Theology of the Body (which I access on - line) to give you the precise quotation and links. However, Mattew Vines, in “God and the Gay Christian” (Convergent Press, 2014), cites in his own discussion, the following references to the published book: “Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology of the Body” (Boston, Mass: Paulist Books & Media, 2006), p414, 416, and 430.
I will be expanding on this later, in a full public post on “Theology of the Body and Gay Marriage”, but I will not be responding further by way of private, one- to - one discussion on this.
I’ve now found the relevant passage, accessible on-line.
The entire TOTB was originally taken from a series of weekly general audiences. Beginning with number 73,through to 87, JP dealt extensively with the relative values of marriage and “celibacy” (a word he uses interchangeably with “continence”). There is nothing at all in this text to suggest that he is referring to priestly celibacy.
He is basing his discussion on Christ’s words in Matthew replying to the disciples who said, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry” (Mt 19:10). Jesus’ familiar response is:
“Not all men can receive the precept, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it” (Mt 19:11-12).
Elaborating on this, John Paul specifically refers to “voluntary” continence, and goes on to state that the precise words in Christ’s response “clearly indicate the importance of personal choice and also the importance of the particular grace, that is, of the gift which man makes to make such a choice”
Read the original text at this link: http://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2tb72.htm
And now, the promised full post:
http://queeringthechurch.com/2014/05/17/two-popes-and-a-cardinal-on-the-problems-with-celibacy/
I look forward to your post. In the interim, I have found (in my own disagreements with Church teaching on sexuality) that unofficial or lay commentary on Church teaching is prone to creating confusion about the teachings by using theological terms interchangeably with colloquial terms, or taking passages out of their larger context. Sometimes this leads to some pretty significant misunderstandings, so it’s usually best to cite directly to the original teaching to bypass the confusion imprecise paraphrasing or out-of-context quotes can create.
I say this from experience: at one time, I was determined to prove a Catholic friend wrong on the Church’s sexuality teachings, but whenever I relied on commentary he always had a well-thought out refutation supported by official documents. Stubborn, I started digging into primary materials like official church documents, writings of saints, and the catechism (all of which cite extensively to scripture, and which I was sure would support me if I just dug deep enough). I was still determined to prove my friend wrong, but the more I read the more I began to see clearly the consistency, comprehensiveness, and interrelatedness of all Catholic teaching. And more love permeating it all than I had ever experienced in my life. It was beautiful, and (in the end) I wanted the love I had discovered more than I wanted the things that conflicted with it.