my roman catholic brothers got this one wrong: reflections on their prohibition of same-sex marriage

This morning I am angry and saddened that once again my Roman Catholic brothers - and they are ALL brothers - chose to affirm that only the possibility of procreation defines a healthy, sacred sexual relationship and, thus they maintain the historic prohibition of priests from blessing same sex marriages. To be clear, this is not a new conclusion or doctrine. 

The Roman Church has long taught that all sexual congress must hold the possibility of conception for it to be in alignment with God's holy purposes of creating life. As an honorable and ethical commitment, this doctrine opposes euthanasia, war, capital punishment, and other acts of violence that interrupt the natural flow of life. The late Archbishop of Chicago, Joseph Bernadin, spoke of this as a calling into a seamless garment of nonviolence that protects the innocent and supports and advocates for the weak. In many ways, I resonate with and even respect aspects of this doctrine. It strives to make nonviolence normative in a utilitarian culture. It seeks to protect unborn children from infanticide as enforced in modern China. It encourages working people to organize into unions and associations to bring a measure of balance to class conflict. And it warns us of the moral ambiguity implicit in mercy killing. All too quickly euthanasia accommodates a society to the destruction of human beings born outside the dominant culture's comfort zone - like people with physical differences or those with intellectual disabilities - and helps us become comfortable with genocide. My nation's experiments with eugenics; Nazi Germany's extermination of gypsies, trade unionists, homosexuals, communists, and Jews; Pol Pot's killing fields; the 100 days of Rwandan slaughter where 600,000 minority Tutsis were executed by the majority Hutu tribe; or the Bosnian-Serbian ethnic cleansing war are but the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the slippery slope of using death as a tool for social organization.

At the same time, however, I recognize the multiplicity of equally profound problems with a one-size-fits-all implementation of this doctrine. The Roman Catholic opposition to birth control comes to mind first as does the nearly universal rejection of it by sexually active American Catholics. A woman's right to exercise complete control over her body's reproductive system is another. And let's not even open the door to the tortured theological anti-logic of St. Augustine's "just war" theory that has allowed some to use the Sermon on the Mount and Christ's call to "love our enemies as ourselves" to justify wars of aggression on behalf of "a greater good." 

The "escape hatch" to doctrinal rigidity was celebrated in Vatican II with the caveat that all human activity - including that required by the church - must be prayerfully and honestly constrained by the contours of an individual's conscience. Again, this holds water for me: at least in theory it places what occurs between the holy and the human above the limitations of the institution - even an institution ordained by God. As the Jesuit magazine, America, recently wrote: this means that some of the Catholic clergy will continue to bless same sex marriages clandestinely - and the evolution of human social relationships will be ignored by the Roman Church for yet another generation. A wise colleague from within my religious tradition, who first entered ministry as a Roman Catholic priest, summarized the problems in the Vatican's recent statement prohibiting a sacramental blessing upon same sex marriages clearly:

It is not licit to impart a blessing on relationships, or partnerships, even stable, that involve sexual activity outside of marriage (i.e., outside the indissoluble union of a man and a woman open in itself to the transmission of life), as is the case of the unions between persons of the same sex. The presence in such relationships of positive elements, which are in themselves to be valued and appreciated, cannot justify these relationships and render them legitimate objects of an ecclesial blessing, since the positive elements exist within the context of a union not ordered to the Creator’s plan. So the point is the question about the "transmission of life" where the sacramentality of marriage is based almost solely on the couple's openness to and ability to procreate. (Vernon Meyer, FB, 3/15/21)

The ethical complications of applying this ancient doctrine to contemporary culture are staggering. Consider the cisgendered couples who are unable to have children and denied the blessing of a sacramental marriage because of biology. Or those whose conscience causes them to oppose bearing offspring. Such denials make no sense, but are essential to a rigid implementation of this doctrine. And what about the sacramental marriages that are annulled? After following elaborate and Byzantine documentation to say nothing of the significant "suggested" financial contributions required to help move this process forward: what of that marriage? Does it magically disappear? What about the children from that union? Are then now illegitimate? None of this bothers to recognize the other equally ethical spiritual traditions that draw different conclusions about human sexuality which include the intense but disciplined ecstasy of Tantric yoga and the shared emotional and physical intimacy nurtured between two adults in a covenant of commitment as advocated by the Reformed wing of Christianity.

What makes the restatement of the old doctrine offensive, and challenging for those of us who are in solidarity with our LGBTQA kin, is our new context. Throughout the world, 21st century people are recognizing that "new occasions teach new duties, as time makes ancient truth uncouth." Marriage equality is now normative in 29 nations. Increasingly, civil society recognizes the significance of extending equal rights and protections to all its members. Late in 2020, Pope Francis publicly articulated his own commitment to this trend: civil law must care for and protect fairly society's most vulnerable members including LGBTQA citizens who are often the victims of violence, prejudice, hatred, and discrimination. As a pastor and former bishop, Francis knows how homophobia and hatred denigrates and abuses the queer community in all too deadly a manner. He has quietly but consistently urged civil laws to include same sex marriage protections. It had been hoped, therefore, that his insights would quietly take precedence. Nothing dramatic would change but incrementally the institutional church might catch up with civil society. 

Monday's announcement by the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith "prohibiting priests from blessing same-sex unions... because the Church does not and cannot bless what God has called sin" dashes that hope. America magazine quoted the Reverend Bryan Massingale, a gay Catholic priest and professor of theology and social ethics at Fordham University: "Priests who want to engage in pastoral outreach to the gay and lesbian community will continue to do so, except that it will be even more under the table...than it was before.”

Twenty plus years ago on the Saturday after Easter, I was blessed and honored to celebrate my first same-sex marriage in Tucson, AZ. It was a sacred and holy event. Di and I are still in touch with this couple who bring joy to the world, support to their local congregation, and encouragement to younger LGBTQA folk that God's love is deeper than an institutions fear, confusion, and mistakes. I give thanks to God for their fidelity even as the wider church fails them. I stand ready to share God's blessings in sacramental ceremonies of marriage with all who are called by love to grow together in covenants of commitment. And do so trusting that as the Spirit changed the hearts of the early church to welcome into equal fellowship Gentiles who came to faith beyond the ethnic confines of ancient Israel, so too all human beings who seek to live their love with responsibility, compassion, and justice.