November
2006
Happy Are Those Who Are Called Celibate
As a former passionate Catholic (still passionate), I was disturbed and disappointed, though not surprised, to hear about the newest decision on homosexuality offered by the American Catholic Bishops. In a paper ironically entitled “Happy are Those who are Called to His Supper,” the words used to invite the congregation to the Eucharistic feast, gay and lesbian Catholics are explicitly invited not to come to the table — that is, not to present themselves to receive Eucharist. I can think of nothing more hurtful and demeaning than this for a devout Catholic. And as the final insult — as though to rub salt in the wound of being cordially invited to leave God’s banquet — this was wrapped in rhetoric of love and an explicit intention to offer better pastoral care to gay and lesbian Catholics. With pastoral care like this…
To be fair, people who use artificial contraception are also invited not to come to communion. We can anticipate that communion will be far more sparsely attended, as approximately 97% of American Catholic women use birth control.
The overall rubric remains the same, and remains as conflicted and senseless as it has ever been. Sexuality is dangerous, and must be contained — the only morally correct reason to engage in sexual behavior is for procreation. Therefore, even though it is not quite sinful for gay and lesbian Catholics to be attracted to their own sex, the attraction itself is “intrinsically morally disordered,” and it is sinful to act upon it. And therefore, gay and lesbian Catholics who engage in relationships with those of the same sex are to be considered sinful and should voluntarily admit their sin and avoid the Eucharist. Furthermore, the Bishops request that they tell as few people as possible about their sexual orientation. For gay and lesbian Catholics, there are only three choices: some are born celibate, some achieve celibacy, and some have celibacy thrust upon them.
When I was in Catholic school as a young tyke, I remember questioning my theology teacher about the logic beneath this view of sexuality. In particular, I was a little confused as to why there was a distinction between “artificial contraception” (bad) and “natural contraception” (good) — meaning the rhythm method. I recall asking why one was bad and one was good, as both had the same moral intention — to have sex while avoiding pregnancy. The good Sister — one of the loveliest souls I have ever met — explained to me that the “natural” method permitted God to interfere and create pregancy if He so desired. I actually blurted out in the middle of class, “So God has the power to overcome the rhythm method, but not a condom?”
This was not even remotely the beginning of my unpopularity in theology class; I believe that began in second grade, when I made a priest flee the classroom by asking him to define what a virgin was in the discussion of the Virgin Mary. He valiantly explained that a virgin was a woman who hadn’t had a baby, and I then asked, quite logically it seemed, whether she was still a virgin after Baby Jesus was born.
High school was my theological glory time, though. I was a very devout Catholic, but couldn’t understand the sexuality stuff. It didn’t make sense to me. Everything else did, including the Trinity and the mystery of transubstantiation — all that was perfectly fine and quite wonderful, really. But if the church truly valued human love, why were people constantly persecuted for exercising it? Why weren’t gay and lesbian people, who had been given a unique gift of love from God, permitted to live out that love? If we truly valued children and family, why weren’t men and women encouraged to act responsibly and use birth control in managing their sexuality? If we truly valued motherhood, why didn’t we encourage women to think carefully about whether they should be mothers, and how many children they could really handle? I couldn’t get answers to any of these things in my theology classes; just a smile and a reminder that this was what I should have read in my textbook, and the answers in the textbook were all I needed to know.
The Catholic church teaches that human beings have the capacity to form their conscience and act accordingly — and even acknowledges that an informed conscience may lead an individual to act against the teachings of the church. As a former Catholic, I am only sorry that the church does not truly believe in its own valuation of human moral capacity, but continues to direct adult human beings as though they are incapable of living their own spiritual and moral lives. I am sorry that the church continues to live out this theology of sexuality, not only in pronouncements aimed at those powerful enough to ignore them and go their own way, but in legislation, persecution, and sanctions against individual choice whenever the church has enough power in a nation or culture to arrange it. And the fact that the holes in this theology of sexuality are clear to a second grader surely should mean something for Catholic leaders who continue to enforce this literally medieval view of humanity.
Not bad… a well written and thought provoking post, but if I may suggest a couple of things.
You lost your credibility, for me anyway, when you said: “the only morally correct reason to engage in sexual behavior is for procreation.” This is simply not what the Catholic Church believes. The purpose of sexual love is so spouses can express their love for each other, modeled after the love of Christ. Procreation is a part of this, but not the “only” reason, as you assert.
Also, your overview of what you call “Natural Contraception” and “artificial contraception” again struck me as odd. I’m curious why you typed these in quotes. Was “natural contraception” your teacher’s terminology? Or is it the church’s term. I, personally, have never come across that wording, and I think it is false. If you want to know why, you can email me, but I won’t go into it here.
But continuing with that theme, you site the Rythm Method as being what the Church means by “natural contraception.” It is true that the Rythm method is a method of, using my term, Natural Family Planning, but it is not the only method. To me, when I see people use Rythem Method with NFP interchangeably, it usually signals that the person doesn’t really know that much about the subject. (I’m offering this not to say you don’t know that much, but rather to engage a Catholic reader more effectively)
Lastly, and more importantly due to the reason for this post, I would like to offer that this post ignored an important group of people who were involved in the drafting of the American Catholic Bishops… The gay catholics who love the Church’s teaching, including its teaching on homosexuality. While these people are a minority among homosexuals, they are out there involved in our parishes trying to become saints like the rest of us. This document was written with them in mind. Homosexuals involved in the group COURAGE, and other support groups for Catholic homosexuals, are excited about the document. If the Church ever decided to “change its stance,” it is these people that would suffer. The last institution to hold to this teaching (relative to the totality of the Church’s teaching) would vanish, and so would their support.
I did enjoy the article, though, and hope to read more from you and your group.
God Bless.
Bryan — what a wonderful comment. Thank you so much. I’m glad that you read the post and were moved to give me your thoughts in such a kind and generous way.
Yes, “natural contraception” was my teacher’s terminology, but I seem to recall it was also in the textbook (keep in mind she was teaching what I’m sure was a very oversimplified form of the debate, for high school juniors who were mostly not college-bound). And yes, I do use “rhythm” interchangeably with NFP — and I realize that I am not an expert on the topic, so your thoughts are particularly welcome there.
The idea that procreation is the only reason for sexual activity is an oversimplification (by me) of natural law theology. This oversimplification is important in this debate because, even though the church does accurately recognize that sexuality plays a much larger role in human relationships than just procreation when talking about heterosexual couples, when discussing the morality of homosexual activity (never “couples,” just random activity), all of those other reasons go by the wayside. That sexual activity in the same sex couple can still fulfill all those other good and morally relevant aspects of sexuality — complete self-giving, trust and vulnerability, the building of deep relationship, the cherishing of the other, and the consummation of bodily pleasure as given to us in creation — is not relevant to the church because it cannot lead to procreation. It is a contradiction even in the church’s own terms, since in the same set of documents just released, the bishops acknowledge that sexual activity is appropriate between a man and a woman even when procreation is manifestly impossible due to age or disease.
Regarding the morality of NFP, it seems to me that the church is actually putting forward a lovely and moral model here of what family planning _could_ be — if it were one option among many, including condoms and birth control. NFP can, theoretically, be wonderful because it requires such complete cooperation between the male and female. When the couple’s main goal is to develop their own relationship in this complementary way, and when they are capable of this level of cooperation, and when they have the time and scientific expertise to follow the model (because it requires special thermometers, mathematical literacy, daily tracking of the woman’s basal temperature, etc.), AND when they are open to children possibly resulting despite all their efforts — then NFP is surely a wonderful choice.
But so many heterosexual couples in the world are not in this situation. For many, the paramount good for their personal health, their marriage, and for their existing children may be to avoid having more children, or no more at a certain time or under certain circumsntances — and for this, NFP is inadequate. For many more, there is no access to the time and resources and training required for NFP. And for many, many more, the level of cooperation is simply not realistic. Women in many marriages and heterosexual relationships, unfortunately, do not have any hope of getting their husbands or male partners to respect their wishes and needs and to help them manage their sexuality by close attention to their fertility cycle. It does not seem moral to me for the Church, which should not condone oppression or disempowerment of any human beings, to insist that women who are not in the ideal situation have no moral options except to submit to unwanted pregancies despite their age, health, economic status, or ability to bear and raise.
Regarding Courage, your stance here is one I haven’t heard before, and it is certainly steeped in compassion. I can only respond from my own experience growing up as a lesbian Catholic. I cannot tell you how much I loved the Church and its teaching — and how damaging that teaching was to me in my efforts to grow and become a full human being capable of mature and loving relationship. Aside from the emotional damage, it led to deep spiritual damage and alienation from God which required years to heal — and which could only be healed by at last discovering a community of faith which accepted me as a fully sexual human being and as a fully spiritual human being, as we all are. One of the most damaging aspects of the Bishops’ instructions, remembering my own experience, is the request that gay and lesbian Catholics not tell anyone outside of their immediate circle of their sexual orientation. It simply reinforces what I remember from the pain of attending Mass, and knowing that I was there only under false pretences — that if I were there honest and complete before God and my brothers and sisters, I would not be welcome. I cannot believe that this is what God desires of his children. We are told that God desires truth in us.
If there are gay and lesbian Catholics out there who, in fact, are not damaged in this way by the Church’s teaching, they have received a grace not vouchsafed to me or to the majority of gay or lesbian Catholics. And if there are, then may God continue to bless them and keep His protective hand over them.
I would be very interested to hear your response to all this — thank you, Bryan!
Jennifer -
Thank you for taking my comment seriously with a thoughtful reply, and thank you for inviting my further comments. People have written books on these topics, as it seems you are familiar due to your insights, so I’ll try to be brief. If I don’t get around to everything tonight, then I will attempt to finish it up tomorrow.
Reguarding NFP, I am no expert either, but I do know that in recent years methods have improved tremendously. The Rythem Method, while a form of NFP is, as I said previously, only one method of many. Most of my friends use the Creighton method. I encourage you, and anyone else, to look it up and become familiar with it. As you rightly assert, there are many values to Natural Methods, because it involves the complete cooperation of male and female. I think you nailed it.
The “scientific expertise” you speak of is important to consider, but I am going to assert that it is not really that difficult for a couple. Mother Theresa and her Missionaries of Charity taught NFP to women (some of whom were illiterate) in Calcutta with remarkable results, which some studies (and yes, I am skeptical of any statistic on this matter, whether they favor my views or not) report as high as 99% effective. In Mother Theresa’s own words (from her 1979 Nobel Prize Lecture:
And in Calcutta alone in six years - it is all in Calcutta - we have had 61,273 babies less from the families who would have had, but because they practise this natural way of abstaining, of self-control, out of love for each other. We teach them the temperature meter which is very beautiful, very simple, and our poor people understand. And you know what they have told me? Our family is healthy, our family is united, and we can have a baby whenever we want. So clear - those people in the street, those beggars - and I think that if our people can do like that how much more you and all the others who can know the ways and means without destroying the life that God has created in us…
If these stats are true (and believe me, I understand they might not be.. but lets not just write them off) then I disagree that NFP is an inadequate form of birth control.
You allude to a sad reality that I am aware of. In your words, “Women in many marriages and heterosexual relationships, unfortunately, do not have any hope of getting their husbands or male partners to respect their wishes and needs and to help them manage their sexuality by close attention to their fertility cycle.”
You rightly recognize this as oppression (or slavery for that matter), and the church does not condone this. But is giving it up to the husband, or male partner, every time he wants it the right way to end this oppression? To me it seems that this perpetuates the oppression, and it is this that should be stopped.
On to homosexuality…
I understand your “oversimplification,” and for now I am fine with your use. Thank you for the clarification.
You offer a wonderful objection to the Church by stating, “It is a contradiction even in the church’s own terms, since in the same set of documents just released, the bishops acknowledge that sexual activity is appropriate between a man and a woman even when procreation is manifestly impossible due to age or disease” I have heard this question discussed before, but I admit, it is a difficult distinction, and one that I certainly don’t understand well enough to comment on. It is a great question.
“If there are gay and lesbian Catholics out there who, in fact, are not damaged in this way by the Church’s teaching, they have received a grace not vouchsafed to me or to the majority of gay or lesbian Catholics. And if there are, then may God continue to bless them and keep His protective hand over them.”
Amen. One person you might be interested in speaking with is John Heard, who blogs under the name Dreadnought. Give him a visit at: http://johnheard.blogspot.com. Many people in the Gay community accuse him of being fake, and very arrogant, but I assure you he is not either of these. He is very open to e-mails, and if you approach him with charity, like this nice discussion we are having, I’m sure a pleasent conversation between Christians will ensue.
Lastly, thank you very much for your story. I value it a lot. I am currently in the seminary studying to be a priest for a West Coast Archdiocese. When I hear of people with “Emotional damage,” I listen closely so that I know not to make the same mistakes. Hearing stories of people wounded by the Church, especially priests (and most especially the sexual abuse scandals), tear me up inside. So please know, I value your thoughts very much, and if you would like to tell me more details to help me in my journey, feel free to email.
In the meantime, if you think this discussion should continue, I’m very interested in what you have to say in response to these points.
God Bless - Bryan.
Hey Jenn,
Thanks for your reflections…and I feel your pain! I am still mourning that the local governing body (Los Ranchos Presbytery) of my denomination Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) voted last week (essentially) to make heterosexuality an “essential” for ordination.
Not only did they do this, but this body, which claimed during the meeting “love for the church’s constitution,” voted to suspend the church’s rules for “debating controversial issues” so they could railroad their resolution (affirming this addition to the ordination essentials) through the voting process without letting the minority view even have a voice.
So, know that it’s not just the Catholic church which is turning its back on a long tradition of affirming “freedom of conscience.” The Presbyterians are right there with them.
Love to you!
Pam
Bryan — I am sorry it has taken so long to get back to you on this one — what with Thanksgiving and all else, it has been a busy time! But I have been thinking about your post as time has allowed.
One way of putting my challenge to the church on the issues of choice (beyond NFP) in contraception for women and on true pastoral support to gay and lesbian people is that the church’s position deliberately refuses to recognize the reality of power imbalance, and therefore conspires in oppression and suffering.
For instance, of course we would like it if all heterosexual women everywhere had complete control over access to their sexuality and fertility. At least, I would like it — but in fact, I think the church would not like it at all. The church does not act to empower women in their relationships with men; instead, the church continues to define women by motherhood, nurturing activities, and their wifely or celibate relationship to men (and, of course, does not permit women to act in ordained leadership roles in the church). The church acts consistently to disempower women institutionally within itself, and ignores (thus complicitly supporting) the disempowerment of women throughout secular society, simply by refusing to acknowledge and act responsibly upon the great divide in social power and status between men and women. By refusing to acknowledge that a woman’s health, educational opportunities, and economic status (and that of her children) are impacted by her fertility and her ability to control it, the church actually supports the ongoing disempowerment of women.
Saying that women should simply be able to say “no” to men is idealistic. Of course it would be wonderful — but your comparison to slavery is apt. Can a slave say “no” to the master without risking severe consequences? History tells us otherwise. And when women say “no” to men, in many cases — in the United States as well as in other societies — they risk violence, economic disaster, the loss of their children, etc. In the United States, where contraception is available to women from sources other than Catholic ones, this doesn’t make as much difference as in those countries where the Catholic church is the primary hospital provider, and where women, whether they agree with the church or not, have almost no choice in agreeing with Catholic contraceptive teachings. The church could truly empower women by encouraging their access to contraception and control of their own sexuality (and, of course, this would limit abortion much more effectively than any other course).
Similarly, the church claims that it wishes to offer pastoral care to gay and lesbian Catholics, but engages constantly in politics around disempowering them and continuing their oppression. In the United States, these political activities currently encompass lobbying against gay marriage and the ability of gay and lesbian people to adopt or raise children. In the international sphere, it goes much further. Remember that gay and lesbian people are regularly tortured and killed in many societies. Rather than defending their basic humanity and their rights to live without harassment and violence, the Vatican joined with a few conservative nations in ensuring that the category of sexual orientation was not added to the United Nations protections of human rights. This shows where the church truly stands on caring for the oppressed, marginalized, and the victims in the world. What possible justification can there be for denying the protection of international law to deeply vulnerable individuals? Such a profound and deliberate blindness to the actual effects of power and disempowerment in society constitutes a culpable moral blindness.
A quote from the Letter from James comes to mind: “If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace, be warmed and filled,’ without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.” What does it profit, morally, for the church to say that women and gay and lesbian people are loved, that they should go in peace and be well, when the church refuses to do what the church is capable of doing to truly care for and empower them as vulnerable classes in society?
To me, it seems that the church has put theological consistency and devotion to a medieval theology of sexuality ahead of the moral imperative — and the much more complicated theological and practical task — of caring for those who are truly in need and who may not have the social power and resources to ensure their own safety or wellbeing, and of working to give those people power and resources to care for themselves.
Jenn- No worries. I was busy as well over the Holiday and have been busy with School ever since.
I noticed your post a couple days ago. At first I found it rather interesting to consider myself on a path which aims at joining a hierarchy that “conspires in oppression and suffering.” I’m not really sure what I was supposed to think about this, but the post served as a reminder that the people of God have demands on their leaders. I hope those being ordained, in my Church and in others, are up for the task.
In the post, you first (accurately) assert that my belief that women should be able to say “no” if they do not want to have sex is idealistic. It is idealistic. But the alternative to this, women not being able to refuse sexual intercourse when they don’t want it (in other words women not ever being able to prevent rape), is much worse: despair and hopelessness. I’ll take idealism over these any day of the week. On our own I don’t think my ideal is possible. But, with the Grace of God anything, including teaching every man on the face of this planet to see the image and likeness of God in every woman, is possible. I will die before I renounce this belief.
For the second point, I really don’t have anything to say concerning its focal point… homosexuality. I am not gay, and I would feel extremely dumb (selfish/naïve) in telling you what your experience as a homosexual Christian has been, or what it really means. As I said earlier though, I do think that the Church has an obligation to continue to preach its message for the sake of those who do feel empowered by it (The folks in COURAGE and the like). But I do have some thoughts on the end of it your post.
You said, “it seems that the church has put theological consistency… ahead of the moral imperative… of caring for those who are truly in need and who may not have the social power and resources to ensure their own safety or wellbeing, and of working to give those people power and resources to care for themselves.”
I actually kind of agree with this statement if I understand it correctly. Let me try and rephrase it in simpler terms. “It seems the church has put orthodoxy (true faith) ahead of orthopraxis (true practice/action)” I think it does seem like that sometimes, yet I also think that at other times it can go the other way around.
The fact is, for Catholics (And this is one area where as a student of Theology I would be very interested in another take from a different Christian group) both of these systems are false. Faith and Action are inseparable. The Church believes we cannot act properly unless we believe rightly, and acting rightly nourishes our faith… Your quote from James is perfect. Faith without works is Dead!
It seems that you demonstrate this to a degree. You have a belief concerning various sexual topics, and then you act. This action deepens your faith that what you believe is true and causes you to act again.
I can think of no theological concept more pertinent to this matter of how faith dictates our action than eschatology, the study of the end times. I consider my self progressive, in the sense that I want to see progress made towards an end, which I view to be the highest good we can accomplish… heaven. And I want as many people to get there as possible.
So, Jenn, and other members of this organization I still know very little about: What are you progressing towards? What is the end, the ideal, that you have in mind?
God Bless.