Same-Sex Marriage



Click on this image to enlarge text

In the not too distant future the ruling members of the Vatican will hopefully  don sackcloth and ashes when they realize the immense harm and pain they have caused their own flock as well as the rest of the world.

Noted author and religious scholar Karen Armstrong  in her latest book, Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life’ (2011) makes this brief but powerful comment about the Catholic Church:

“In the Roman Catholic Church, popes and bishops have ignored the suffering of countless women and children by turning a blind eye to the sexual abuse committed by their priests”. 

Catholic apologist today like to distract its members from the real issues (primarily concerning sins committed in the pelvic area) by pointing fingers into the other direction and claiming that they are merely victims of religious persecution.

One recent example of identifying other isolated victims comes to us from the Catholic NewsService  whose author Mark Pattison writes  "several US Bishops (along with more than three dozen U.S. religious leaders) signed a joint document voicing their concern that they are being forced to treat same-sex unions 'as if they were marriage."

   This very un-Christian letter or document takes up the argument, not so much on religious grounds, but rather on the impact same-sex marriages will have on legal and domestic grounds.  For example the signatories warned that ‘Religious employers would "face lawsuits for taking any adverse employment action -- no matter how modest -- against an employee for the public act of obtaining a civil 'marriage' with a member of the same sex”.  The real question then should be ‘exactly whose rights are being denied? Since the details are readily available to the readers, I will leave it to them to form their own opinions.

When this item first appeared online through various Catholic websites I quickly posted my thoughts on the subject as follows:

"Reading this letter is like reading the instructions for building a fortress or assembling missiles. The overwhelming essence this message conveys is one of fear. Fear of the unknown, fear of offending the authorities, the legal system, the insurance industry and an even greater fear that legalization of same-sex marriage will somehow undermine or even destroy so-called family values. Nothing can undermine what we hold true in God!

 
Has anyone noticed that there are several key words missing in this text? There is not a single reference to God or love? Be assured that when fear steps in the Holy Spirit steps aside. This has allowed some of our more vocal religious leaders to rely on temporal support for their argument rather than trusting in the unconditional love of our Creator. Allow me to paraphrase the last paragraph of this document accordingly: The value of marriage (mixed or otherwise) when honoured between two loving people and blessed by God transcends any society or government. God rather than worldly institutions and opinions must be the only true foundation of all societies".

As expected several conservative individuals immediately jumped in at the opportunity to properly denounce people with homosexual tendencies.  These fervent Christians are convinced that they have the full support of God, the magisterium and a vast majority of similar thinking laity.

In response to my posting one contributor wondered if I was crazy because I talked too much about God's unconditional love.  At the same time he/she voiced the opinion that I lacked the intelligence to provide an explanation that would reach God's logic.  When I suggested that perhaps other readers might benefit from his/her definition of God’s unconditional love, I received this reply:

 “If all that is required for a marriage is love, then why limit it to just two people, why not love between two of more people?  Why discriminate against these other kinds of love? On the other hand, keeping marriage between a man and a woman, as a means to bond and create a family is consistent and logical.  Once you get rid of this definition, then pretty much anything goes”.

At this point most readers would probably recommend  I not respond to such an outrageous comment.  Sorry, but I did.

“Dear . . .  From reading between the lines it appears you have a problem with persons with sexual preferences or attractions that are different from yours. There are cultures and traditions in many parts of the world where a marriage involves more than two people. Is that wrong? If so, why and according to whose standards? Many biblical heroes and figures such as Abraham and David had more than one wife or concubine. The list is quite long. If the sole purpose of keeping a marriage between a man and a woman for the purpose of creating a family what do you say to those families where one of the two partners is infertile? To jump to the simple conclusion that if we DON'T limit your definitions of love then ‘anything goes’! If that is all it takes to break your connection with God then He is no more than your average weak human being. Or at best a god created in our own poor image.

 
As for lust that is something that is equally shared by both heterosexual and homosexual couples. But your comment begs the question ‘how will the average God fearing individual know, when and if homosexuals or lesbians, etc. are indeed involved in that sinful sexual act? The catechism is at least more generous than you toward people of the same sex by telling us that we must love them – perhaps for some not the act. We could all do with trying to be more compassionate and less judgmental toward each other. Lets therefore again focus on the real meaning of God’s unconditional love”.

And that was the last I heard from our very convinced anti-gay friend. May the spirit of compassion and understanding fill his heart and bring him peace.

Before you leave this page, I would ask that you click and enlarge the picture that accompanies this article in the begining.  It has some interesting things to say about marriage taken from the Bible.  

A Matter of the Heart

The most frequent lines of defence used by some religious individuals to trump a religious argument is "the church teaches that . . . ." or "the church has always maintained that . . . ." or "the church fathers made it clear that . . . ." And finally, "the Bible says that . . ." Has it ever occurred to these individuals that while these are helpful tools, they need to first and foremost consult the ultimate authority within? That is where they will find the peace and compassion that will help them resolve many of the issues confronting them.

To claim victory on an argument merely on the basis of someone else's opinion ignores the hidden motives behind the original argument – more importantly it minimizes or devalues the potential of your own unique insight into the issue which may prevent you from searching for a deeper truth. Yes, you may be wrong but by expressing your own personal views but you will at last have claimed the very freedom that God gave us in the first place. This attitude will only help you to grow in wisdome and become more compassionate and understanding toward people. Conflicting ideas can give way to new understandings. We need to learn how to respond with God's wisdom and patience to any contrary views. Revelation has not happened once and for all time; it is an ongoing process that can never end, because there are always fresh teachings to be discovered. (Karen Armstrong 2007).
Tradition and scripture must therefore be interpreted not in historical terms but in our own modern everyday experiences.

The writings of the Church and the Bible are often expressed in obscure and complex terms. Some interpretations or passages have even been found to contradict each other. Words expressed in writing, when not taken to heart, have a habit of becoming absolute truths in the eyes of many a fundamentalist. And that is precisely why the ancient Israelites struggled so intensely with the question of committing their oral tradition to writing.

One of the most divisive issues to arise within our religious communities today concerns the question of homosexuality. To give readers an example of contradictory teachings on one of this issue I will compare the Roman Catholic teachings on homosexuality based on two separate but official Church documents not published less than twenty years apart. The 1969 Catholic Catechism describes homosexuality as follows: "It is not the fault of the individual if he or she is not attracted to the other sex. The causes of homosexuality are unknown. In their human isolation, they look for friendship. But even where they find true and loyal responses, the perfect fulfilment of their human longings is not granted them". Compare this compassionate view with the one expressed by Pope Benedict XVI as Cardinal to the Bishops of the Church, 'On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons'(1986) describing homosexuality as an intrinsic moral evil and that gay services are not to be tolerated and that Church facilities cannot be made available [for gays]".

Historically institutional religion has always assumed a supremist position on matters of morals and ethics. Yet there are plenty of examples of non Christians and non believer who have exhibited far greater moral ideals. There have been too many instances in history where unbending religious attitudes have been responsible for much human suffering. Humankind is a Holy gift from God, but we have shown that we are definitely capable of many unholy acts. Is does not help anyone when we defend our negative actions with words like "The dogmatic teaching of the Church is in no way affected by the question as to whether the Inquisition was justified in its scope, or wise in its methods, or extreme in its practice. The Church established by Christ, as a perfect society, is empowered to make laws and inflict penalties for their violation. Fortunately Pope John Paul II recognized it otherwise and declared the Inquisition as the "greatest error in church history".

Our very human errors and arguments for and against any religious issue must be overcome with the heart rather than the head. More importantly we need to recognize our individual and unique role in resolving these issues. It must not be left just to the institution or a literal interpretation of scripture.

It would be very different if Pro-Life and Pro-Choice groups where to dialogue about abortion if it were understood as embracing life from the Alpha to the Omega. Finger pointing and confrontational attitudes merely present fodder for the media. Morals and/or ethical values are usually taught or passed on by parents, teachers, etc., but more often directly through the experience of life's difficult circumstances. Only when we are prepared to surrender our frailties can we be open to the inner gift of compassion and understanding. This gift brings a growth that is beyond the scope of legislation and law making. By forcing people to choose on the question of abortion without having experienced God's gift of compassion is not the way Jesus taught.