The Catholic Church just reiterated its refusal to bless gay marriages, which should surprise exactly no one but is still causing outrage. The opinion was released by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the office responsible for expounding on official doctrine.
Their reasoning is entirely consistent with the Church’s understanding of human sexuality going back millennia.
…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 Holy See would have to abandon its conception of the purpose of marriage in order to give approval to marriages that cannot “bear fruit.” If you’re really interested in all the doctrinal obstacles involved here, you’ll have to delve into the role of “sacraments” and “sacramentals,” and that’s explained in the Vatican’s letter. The short version is that a “blessing” isn’t considered a casual thing that can be issued just to be polite or on the right side of public opinion. They can’t bless something that flagrantly contradicts their doctrine.
Consequently, in order to conform with the nature of sacramentals, when a blessing is invoked on particular human relationships, in addition to the right intention of those who participate, it is necessary that what is blessed be objectively and positively ordered to receive and express grace, according to the designs of God inscribed in creation, and fully revealed by Christ the Lord. Therefore, only those realities which are in themselves ordered to serve those ends are congruent with the essence of the blessing imparted by the Church.
So, again, this comes down to marriage. What is it for? The Church says “by its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”
Marriage is “ordered to procreation” and is fundamental. All else flows from it.
Furthermore, since blessings on persons are in relationship with the sacraments, the blessing of homosexual unions cannot be considered licit. This is because they would constitute a certain imitation or analogue of the nuptial blessing invoked on the man and woman united in the sacrament of Matrimony, while in fact “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.”
This language comes across as harsh and almost nonsensical. How is a marriage between a same-sex couple not “even remotely analogous” to a marriage between a man and a woman? It comes down to sex.
Sex is only permissible if there is at least an openness to procreation involved, and only within the confines of a sanctified marriage. Were the Church to reconsider this doctrine, it would have to alter its position on a lot more than gay marriage, and they are not prepared to do that.
As a Protestant-raised agnostic, I have no bone in this fight. People can belong to the Church and accept its understanding of marriage and human sexuality or they can fight to change it. Others can leave the faith for another more compatible with their beliefs. It’s makes no difference to me.
But it’s important to understand that this isn’t a small thing the Church is being asked to alter. It’s bedrock stuff that implicates everything from birth control, celibacy, sex outside of marriage, the marriage sacrament, the purpose of marriage, and the role of sacramental blessings. It’s really a way of looking at human beings’ role in the universe that can’t be tweaked to accommodate a modern understanding of human sexuality and relationships.
If you’re down with this worldview, then Catholicism is the religion for you. If you’re not, then gay marriage isn’t by any means the only area where you’re going to be disappointed on sexual matters within the faith.
Having said that, Pope Francis has been significantly more tolerant and welcoming of the LGBT community than any of his predecessors. Even this ruling, which he approved, sounds apologetic in its overall tone.
The declaration of the unlawfulness of blessings of unions between persons of the same sex is not therefore, and is not intended to be, a form of unjust discrimination, but rather a reminder of the truth of the liturgical rite and of the very nature of the sacramentals, as the Church understands them.
The Christian community and its Pastors are called to welcome with respect and sensitivity persons with homosexual inclinations, and will know how to find the most appropriate ways, consistent with Church teaching, to proclaim to them the Gospel in its fullness.
In the end, though, they are compelled to call homosexual acts and same-sex marriage “sinful,” because there’s no doctrinal way to avoid that conclusion that’s consistent with its holistic view of God’s plan for humanity.
As I said above, anyone who wants to change this is facing a big challenge. They’ll have my respect and best wishes. For me, though, I can’t find anything significant to fault in the latest ruling that wasn’t already baked in the cake before it. It’s a religion-a way of understanding the world and our place in it. Their way is not my way but that’s easy for me to say because I wasn’t brought up in that faith.
As an outsider, I think Pope Francis has done a lot to modernize the Church’s position and I hope he can find ways to do more. I won’t bash him for this ruling even if it’s obviously disappointing. The Church’s way of thinking about sex and marriage is nearly set in stone and hard to change, but how it treats people is very flexible. Pope Francis understands this and he deserves credit for it.
I’m surprised to see that I agree with your analysis on this, an issue of faith. Politically I’m as liberal as anyone but I wouldn’t want to live in a world that didn’t include freedom of religion, which includes the right for religions to abide by whatever doctrines they choose. I may not agree. I may not think their behavior fair. And that’s why it’s great there are many religions.
If a religion that doesn’t have space for gay marriage or any other lifestyle says, in essence, “This is not our way but you’re welcome to be here, to join us” and they are non-discriminatory in other ways (they don’t exclude from rituals, for example, or claim that people who don’t subscribe to their approved lifestyle are unlovable or unworthy), that’s the best one can hope for. Now if a church lays heavy judgments on homosexuals, I’d say that church is really messed up and not worthy of anyone’s support. But once again, that’s just my opinion.
I think it’s right to demand government not discriminate based on sexual orientation. Gay marriage needs to be legal as a matter of law. Religious institutions need not agree. I don’t think employers should be able to fire people who are gay or discriminate in other ways. But religion is different. We need to respect the right of people to believe whatever they believe, as long as they’re not actively seeking to harm anyone.
Have not read the declaration beyond these excerpts, but the stance is hard to defend in light of the Church’s willingness to bless marriages between a man and a woman who, for reasons of age or infertility, are incapable of producing offspring. They have their reasons for approving of these unions: companionship in the case of age and the possibility of miracles in the case of infertility, IIRC, (they certainly do not approve of most reproductive technology).
There ought to be a way to apply both reason and theology to work around the issues involved in same-sex marriage, just as there is around other marriages where “natural” reproduction is off the table. Maybe the Church will come around to it in a century or so.
Agreed that some of the same reasoning can be applied, but the miracle is a bit more strained in same-sex marriages, which is why they say it’s not in any way analogous.
Ah, but here’s where it becomes really interesting. Anything involving surrogacy or technology and human reproduction is right out. But an all-merciful, loving God would want orphaned or abandoned children whom no one else wants to adopt to be part of a loving family, albeit one that the Church would describe as (at best, I admit) differently ordered, yet nonetheless entitled to “respect and sensitivity.” By way of analogy, I don’t think the Church is completely opposed to adoption by single parents, just doesn’t consider it ideal. And the Church is very much cognizant and supportive of singlehood as a vocation for lay persons.
Some of my best friends—people passionately devoted to social justice, including LGBTQ rights—are Catholic. I’ve never been able to wrap my head around it. They basically ignore those aspects of doctrine that don’t suit them (which I assume a lot of people in restrictive religions do, see the Southern Baptists), but it just doesn’t fit in my brain.
Well, certainly on many areas of social justice, the Church and elements within the Church have been leaders.