From the perspective of Jesus's teaching and that subsequently found in the New Testament, particularly in the seven authentically Pauline letters, it is easy to make too much of marriage. At the same time, in light of some of the deutero-Pauline letters, the Book of Revelation, and the witness of the Hebrew Bible, it is also easy to make too little of marriage. From beginning to end, as it were, starting with the marriage in the Garden and culminating in the Wedding Feast of the Lamb in the Book of Revelation, God's covenant with humanity has an unmistakably nuptial character. Jesus even speaks of himself as "bridegroom." The nuptial character of God's covenant with humanity is perhaps most explicitly articulated in the Book of Hosea.
Being a sacrament, marriage is both a sign and a symbol. What this means in context and as our Gospel reading for Year C, the 32nd Sunday in Ordinary Time (Luke 20:27-38, clearly shows, marriage points to a reality beyond itself. Hence, marriage is not an end in itself. When understood and lived properly, marriage is a means (by no means the only or even primary means) to the end of establishing God's reign. As John Paul II insisted in his Letter to Families, the home is indispensable for the creation of a civilization of love. As such, it is not only a way to salvation for spouses and their children but a way for Christian spouses to bear witness to Christ and to be Church. In addition to being salvific, Christian marriage is evangelical.
One of the best books I've read on marriage in recent years is by Anglican theologian Robert Song: Covenant and Calling: Towards a Theology of Same-Sex Relationships. While very short, Covenant and Calling is a very deep look at marriage and sexuality through the lens of the New Testament. In this work, Song makes some important distinctions. While he recognizes the need for the Church to provide a way for same-sex Christian couples to live their partnerships within the Church, he also recognizes, as a matter of fact, that same-sex relationships and inter-sex relationships have some important differences.
Among other notable people, James Alison recognizes the obvious differences between inter-sex and same-sex relationships. This is to say nothing other than the obvious: sexual relations between people of the same sex cannot be reproductive. Of course, this fact has been used not only to unfairly discriminate against but to denigrate homosexuals, much to the Church's shame. But no less than Humanae vitae, which document's progressive aspects are frequently overlooked, insists that sexual relations can have a value beyond (in addition to?) the potential for reproduction.
As per Humanae vitae, the so-called "unitive" aspect of sexual relations is not "beyond" or "over and above" the procreative but sits alongside it (perhaps in the passenger seat- see sec. 12). However, as Luke Timothy Johnson, critiquing John Paul II's Theology of the Body in Commonweal many years ago, observed: you can't really insist on the necessity of there being present in each and every act of intercourse a complete harmony of unitive and procreative intent. After all, he reasoned, two people can engage in a one-night stand that results in pregnancy. In such a scenario, while procreation occurred, it was likely not intended and presumably not desired. There was almost certainly nothing of the "unitive" aspect as described by Humane vitae. The relevant question then becomes, since the procreative aspect can be present in the absence of the unitive, can the unitive aspect be present in the absence of the procreative? This is a question on which hangs a lot of weight.
Equality of Man and Woman, by Shahram Soltani, 2012
Alison, for one, sees the non-reproductive aspect of same-sex relations as a reason for thinking differently about Christian sexual ethics for homosexual people. I don't want to go there in this post. Suffice it to say, it is an interesting and important question. One which I am predisposed to disagree with Alison.
One of the sources of crisis for the Church in our day, I think, is a kind of neurotic drive towards uniformity. Pope Francis's pushing against this creates a lot of consternation for uniformists on both sides of many issues. But the Holy Father's insistence that the Church must act in a more collaborative, co-responsible, that is, a synodal manner is bringing her back to her roots. It is a true ressourcement. After all, the Church is unity in diversity or it is not the Church.
The Church's nature flows from God, who, being a communion of divine persons, is also a diverse unity. Just as Catholics too easily lose sight of Jesus's humanity, we are also uncomfortable with the real distinction between the persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This led Karl Rahner to lament in an essay, written way back in 1951 to mark the 1500th anniversary of the Council of Chalcedon, that most Christians are mere monotheists rather than Trinitarians.
Recognizing that the Church is an ordered community, which does not necessarily translate into being an orderly community, Song proposes an ordering of committed relationships that are recognized by the Church. His proposal recognizes that marriage between a woman and a man who embrace having children is different from other relationships. But this difference does not deny the goodness of other loving relationships be they homosexual or heterosexual. Song suggests that the Church find ways to embrace people by recognizing the value of these relationships by formally blessing them.
Similar to the question about the unitive and procreative aspects of sex, the question arises about married heterosexual couples who, though unable to naturally conceive children, choose either to adopt children or not raise children at all. How much of a qualitative difference is there between such a couple and a same-sex couple? Many same-sex couples choose to adopt children and no small number of partners in these relationships have children from a previous relationship. This question becomes acute because a growing number of heterosexual couples, it seems, are unable to naturally conceive children. But then there are those married couples, even Catholic couples, who marry with no intention of ever having children. If their marriage lasts a lifetime and its validity is never called into question, it never rises to the level of pastoral concern.
When one considers something like the idea that the Holy Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son personified, it is easy to see how the natural family can be viewed as an icon of the Trinity. This must be balanced with our adoption as God's children through the re-birth of baptism. This provides us with the basis for bringing "non-natural" families into the order of grace. One of the great beauties of Christian faith is its ability to embrace the complex whole of reality as it is. In other words, we don't have to try to build idols by hammering things into some imagined ideal shape. Life is messy, weird, strange, complex.
All of the above is offered in service of trying to recognizing that there is something characteristically unique in the union between a man and woman. This uniqueness is (literally) borne out by naturally conceiving and having children together. I realize this might be seen by some as just another variant of "heterosexism" or "heteronormativity." When viewed from a certain perspective, I suppose that's valid. But looking at the depth of the affinity between male/female through the dual lenses of nature and in revelation, it's the best I can do right now while maintaining my own integrity.
I am aware enough to grasp that there is a certain complexity in creation that departs from this, rendering, to employ the jargon, non-binary. Revelation, as I grasp it, holds this relation is high regard while also introducing variations and developments- the Bible is magnificent not only for its incorporation of complexity but its introduction of it. Perhaps no part of our humanity reflects our complexity more than our sexuality.
No comments:
Post a Comment