Relationships, Not Acts: An Emerging Catholic Orthodoxy?

Recent statements by Cardinals Martini and Schonborn, and Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, have highlighted an important shift in Catholic thinking on homoerotic and other sexual ethics. Outside the isolation of the Vatican, there has been an important shift of emphasis from an exclusive concern with genital acts, to consideration of the quality of the relationships – and recognition of their value.

In recent weeks, I have reported three events that signal the beginning of a remarkable shift in thinking on sexual ethics by some Catholic bishops. First, came Bishop Geoffrey Robinson’s call for a fundamental rethink of the whole of sexual doctrine, the first bishop to acknowledge publicly that the entire structure is fundamentally flawed. Next, came reports of Cardinal Martini’s book, and his recognition of some value in same-sex relationships. Then, the one that has drawn the strongest public reaction, came the reports that Cardinal Christoph Schonborn of Vienna together with his fellow Austrian bishops had ratified the election of an openly gay man to a Vienna parish council. As the news spread that the election will stand, the reaction at some  conservative sites has been predictably shocked. They see it as a break with established Catholic teaching and tradition, but it is in fact the exact opposite – a return to an ancient, long-standing tradition in Catholic teaching and practice of respect for same – sex unions and intimate friendships, a respect that some modern bishops are now beginning to rediscover, honour and articulate themselves.  Even in the modern church, this is not in fact new, except in the ranks of bishops, who are now simply beginning to catch up with the rest of the Church.

To understand this, I offer first a brief summary of the historic shifts, and then outline how outside the Vatican and the bishops’ dicasteries, the real church has already changed.

(more…)

Sex and Catholics 2: Gender perspectives and Evolution

Natural Law: Part 2

Gender perspectives and evolution

We left two issues on one side for reconsideration later, near the beginning of Part One, evolution and the female perspective. In this part we’ll critically reassess the male perspective, before considering the seriously missing female views, and then move on to examine what needs to be incorporated from our understanding of evolution.
Patriarchy - a penis puts you in charge of the womenfolk - how convenient
The male perspective and the Church’s sexual morality teaching

The Church and Aquinas’s sexual morality teaching comes from a male, patriarchal perspective. It is explicitly so and starts from the use by men of the penis and its supposed proper, natural and moral purpose. We are told nature allows us to deduce the sexual purpose of the penis is for inserting into the vagina for depositing semen for the purpose of procreation. This is backed up by another natural purpose idea, that the male and female sexual bodies are designed to be ‘complementary’ and only with the vaginal use by the penis do human bodies fit ‘naturally’.

Added to this is a significant element of Bible and Christian tradition used to justify and reinforce the very restricted view of acceptable human sexual behaviour. There’s only one plain dish available in the Catholic sexual cafe, even for married couples.

(more…)

NCR Editorial Endorses Robinson’s Call for a New Sexual Ethic

We wholeheartedly second the invitation by Australian Bishop Geoffrey Robinson for a thorough and honest reexamination of the church’s teaching on sexuality. (See story.) Robinson’s invitation, coming in a paper delivered in Baltimore at a conference sponsored by New Ways Ministry, is a gentle but elegant plea that offers hope for Catholics who want to stop the church’s headlong plunge into irrelevancy as a moral voice in our culture.

Robinson says that a careful study of the long arc of church teaching on sexuality comes to this foundational statement: “The church is saying that love is the very deepest longing of the human heart, and sex is a most important expression of love, so people should do all in their power to ensure that sex retains its ability to express love as deeply as possible.”

From this foundation, Robinson suggests three areas to reexamine Catholic teaching.

Rather than seeing sexual sin as an offense against God because it is a violation of the divine and natural order established by God, look at sexual morality in terms of the good or harm done to persons and the relationships between them. Robinson says he thinks God is “not easily offended.” He continues, “All the evidence tells us that God cares greatly about human beings and takes a very serious view of any harm done to them, through sexual desire or any other cause.”

Rather than trying to discern good or bad in objective acts — was this act unitive and open to procreation? — look at how the intentions and circumstances surrounding what a person does or doesn’t do lead toward or away from loving deeply. “Sexual acts are pleasing to God when they help to build persons and relationships, displeasing to God when they harm persons and relationships,” he writes.

Rather than narrowly focused attention on a few explicit Bible verses devoted to sexual morality, use the best of scripture scholarship to understand the Bible as the unfolding story of a journey, the spiritual journey of the people of God. No single verse or collection of verses can be seen as the final word of God on a subject, Robinson writes.

Robinson is not the first to articulate the need for a responsible reexamination of sexual ethics, one that takes seriously the radical call to selfless love, but the addition of a bishop’s voice adds new dimension to the conversation. By rebuilding Christian morality in the area of sexuality in the way Robinson suggests, we will achieve a teaching that can better challenge the message about sexuality trumpeted by the dominant culture in television, music and advertising, a sexuality that idolizes self-gratification and that puts “me” before “you.” By placing the needs of the other first, our sexual ethic would reject sexual violence — physical and psychological, the idolatry of self-gratification, the objectification of people, and the trivializing of sex when it is separated from love.

- read the full editorial at   National Catholic Reporter.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bishop Robinson: The Middle Ground

Bishop Geoffrey Robinson concluded his critique of traditional Catholic sexual theology, by showing how its obsession with procreation and sexual acts, leaves it inadequate as a sound basis for a healthy system of sexual ethics. He then proceeds to suggest an alternative foundation:

I suggest that the answer is that we should move to an ethic that, firstly, sees any offence against God as being brought about, not by the sexual act in itself, but by the harm caused to human beings; secondly, speaks in terms of persons and relationships rather than physical acts, and thirdly, then builds an argument on these two foundations rather than on unproven assertions.

Although this may remind us at first glance of the phrase, “First, do no harm”, Robinson is careful to insist that this alone is not enough. Rather, it is subservient to the broader principle “Love your neighbour”.  He rejects any suggestion that sex is unimportant, insisting that a careless attitude to the subject simply trivializes it. Sexual pleasure is not morally neutral, but a positive good. Respecting this principle requires that in exercising it, we should be seeking to promote the good of the other, our partner. Trivializing it fails to do so, and ends by doing harm, even where this is unintended.

(more…)

Bishop Robinson: Sexual Acts, or Relationships?

Concluding his three arguments against the traditional sexual theology of the Catholic Church, Bishop Geoffrey Robinson makes a very short, simple point: the emphasis on that teaching, on the physical acts rather than on the relationships between the persons, is the wrong way around.

The documents on homosexuality are particularly bad in this respect, demonstrating a marked asymmetry between same – sex and opposite – sex sexuality, regularly contrasting same – sex “genital acts” with ” loving conjugal relations”. But as several married heterosexuals have pointed out, the fuss over gay marriage as impossible because it is not procreative, is also offensive to them, especially the women, because it reduces them simply to the status of baby makers.

Third Argument

The third argument is that the teaching of the Church is to far too great an extent based on a consideration of what is seen as the God‐given nature of the physical acts in themselves rather than on how such acts affect persons and relationships. And it continues to do this at a time when the whole trend in moral theology is in the opposite direction. I shall return to this point.

(more…)

Bishop urges change in all church teaching on sexual relationships

Sooner or later, it had to happen. Ordinary Catholics living in the real world have known it for decades, moral theologians know it, priests in Austria, Germany, Belgium and Ireland have been demanding it, and an unknown number of bishops recognize it privately. Now, at least on bishop is saying it publicly: the officially authorized doctrine on human sexuality, in all its aspects, is fundamentally and intrinsically disordered, and has to change.

Bishop Geoffrey Robinson will not be the last bishop to make this call – expect many more to follow. It will take time, but this will become the mainstream view. The only questions in my mind, are how long will it take, and how will they manage the admission.

At the Seventh National Symposium on Catholicism and Homosexuality, retired Australian Bishop Geoffrey Robinson called Friday for “a new study of everything to do with sexuality” — a kind of study that he predicted “would have a profound influence on church teaching concerning all sexual relationships, both heterosexual and homosexual.”

“If [church] teaching on homosexual acts is ever to change, the basic teaching governing all sexual acts must change,” he said.

Robinson, a priest since 1960 and auxiliary bishop of Sydney from 1984 until his retirement for health reasons in 2004, told the Baltimore symposium, sponsored by New Ways Ministry, that “because sex is so vital a way of expressing love, sex is always serious.”

That view, espoused by the church, stands in contrast to the general perception of modern society, which “appears to be saying more and more that sex is not in itself serious,” he said.

For the church to deal with sex seriously, however, does not in itself mean that the church must continue to accept uncritically its traditional understandings of sexual morality, he said.

-National Catholic Reporter.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bishops’ Double-Speak: Gay Ministry, Liturgy

I once heard a helpful observation by James Alison that in assessing statements by Pope Benedict on issues affecting gay men and lesbians, we need to consider not only what he said, and what he did not say, but also the context: the expected minimum that he could get away with saying. That is, there are times when public expectations are such that as pope, he can not avoid at least mentioning the subject. In such circumstances, we need to understand that what at first glance may appear to be critical, on closer analysis might appear to be not exactly friendly, but at least less harsh than the words he might have used.  On another occasion, I heard a suggestion that in one attack on gay marriage, Benedict had used a particularly weak argument, not couched in theological terms. This gave rise to speculation that this weak line or argument was a deliberate attempt to allow, even to encourage, debate and counterarguments – if he had used the rigorous, theological arguments of which he is capable, this thinking went, there would have been no senior officials willing to disagree, and his statements would have become enshrined in papal orthodoxy. And so, we should interpret an apparent attack on gay marriage as moderately good news for gay and lesbian Catholics.

(more…)

Eppur si muove! (Galileo, the Church, and Absolute Truth)

“And yet it moves!” Legend has it that Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) muttered these words to himself on his way out after having been forced to recant. At issue was his work on the theory of heliocentrism – that the Earth revolves around the Sun – whence the comment “And yet it moves!” It was a theory that shook to its foundations the long-held cosmological paradigm that the Earth was flat and that the Sun and the other celestial bodies went round the Earth (geocentrism). Whether or not Galileo actually said these words, they express the exasperation of all who are forced to accept tenets that fly in the face of better reason and sounder evidence. These words fittingly represent the apparent conflict between science and religion, between reason and faith. I use the word ‘apparent’ because, in truth, the issue really is one between those who seek to know the truth, and those who want certainty at all costs, even if it means turning beliefs into irrefutable truths. I will not concern myself with other belief systems here, but will keep my focus on Christianity, and its sacred texts, the Scriptures.

Portrait of Galileo Galilei by Justus Susterma...

You were right after all (even though they’d hate to admit it)

The trial against Galileo represents a very dark chapter in the history of Christianity, more specifically, of the Roman Catholic Church. He was not the only person to face the wrath of the Church authorities. Oh, the extremes religion is prepared to go to keep its belief-system intact rather than face the possibility of development and change/growth. Thankfully, progress has been made and there is a greater understanding of the spheres of work of both science and faith, and especially the error of using the Bible to extract scientific truths. Feathers were ruffled when Darwin came forward with his theory on the evolution of the species. Here again was a theory that challenged the Genesis creation account. As far as the mainstream Christian denominations go, there is a (qualified) acceptance of the evolution theory in the explanation given to the origin and development of life here on Earth.

What troubles me is that the mentality of absolute certainty that has dogged the Christian Churches in the past seems to be rearing its head again. Or perhaps it has always been there, dormant for a time but now experiencing a revival. (more…)

John Paul II, and the “Dysfunctional Vatican Monarchy”

A frequent theme in the assessments of John Paull II runs along these lines, written in this case by E. J. Dionne at Commonweal:

When historians look back, John Paul’s greatest achievements will inevitably be seen as liberal, in the broadest sense: his commitment to human rights and religious liberty, his calls for greater social justice, his embrace of workers’ rights (“the priority of labor over capital”), and his strenuous opposition to religious prejudice. Recall that John Paul was the first pope—not counting St. Peter—to visit a synagogue, where he issued a ringing condemnation of anti-Semitism.

What I find astonishing in this, is its myopia. While I welcomed JPII’s obvious and strong commitment to all these good things in the secular world, I cannot share in the adulation for a leader who urges on others, what he steadfastly refused to do himself. His commitment to worker rights  was contradicted by his disregard for those principles in dealing with the bishops and theologians with whom he disagreed. His calls for social justice did not extend to the victims of clerical sexual abuse.

John Paul of course did not create the Vatican dictatorship, but he did go a long way to derailing the promising reforms of Pope John XXIII (Dionne’s remarks on JPII quoted above were made in the context of a proposal to detoxify the imminent beatification by moving ahead with the cause for John XXIII).  The problem is that there is a deep-seated autocratic, monarchical culture in the Vatican, which has nothing to do with either Scripture, or the earliest traditions of the Church. A useful article by   at National Catholic Reporter traces the historical background. Here are some extracts: (more…)

Queer Families: A Personal, Catholic Case For Gay Marriage

Brian Cahill is the former executive director of Catholic Charities in San Francisco, a pillar of the local church. He has also incurred the wrath of the readers of California Catholic Daily, for daring to speak honestly about family realities and gay marriage, instead of simplistically spouting quotations from Catholic rule books. The vitriol in much of the comment thread at CCD responding to the article  is saddening. To simply quote reflexively the Catechism teaching is not helpful: what has so enraged the readers is no more than what most rational Catholics have known for years: that the Catechism content on sexual ethics is deeply flawed, and desperately in need of revision.

Theoretical arguments making the case for change are freely available. Mr Cahill makes his case on other, more personal grounds: his son is gay. Personal stories are powerful, and our families and friends our most valuable allies. (This is the perspective of a parent. In my accompanying post today, I offer that of a young son of two dads).

(more…)

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Switch to our mobile site