Reframing sexuality and marriage

Religious sanctioned
Gay Marriage circa 100 AD
Serge and Bacchus

            I feel compelled to write a commentary today instead of a scriptural based reflection because so many of my friends seemed to come to me about Pope Francis' conciliatory tones about being gay. What did I think? Was this a real game changer?  As one friend observed on his facebook page, he wrote "2 words:  cautiously optimistic". My response was " 4 words: don't hold your breath." Several other face book postings and media comments made me decide to write this blog entry on marriage.

          The concept of marriage is perhaps as old as time but the definition and scope of marriage has changed quite a bit over the years. Many on the religious and political right would have you believe otherwise. An excellent book on the subject is Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe, a groundbreaking book based on very thorough research by a Catholic scholar at Yale.

         Let me first discuss some of the forms of marriage through the centuries and how it has evolved.  I doubt very much there is any evidence of formal marriages back in the time of Moses but it may have been so. At that time marriages were arranged and often for purposes of joining families, businesses or allowing for production of children to help with the agricultural work in that pre-mechanised, pre-industrial era. Eventually regulated marriages by 'governments' had a religious blessing attached to them. Very often this was totally separate.  The church was not involved in anything more than a blessing.  The intermediate step I will talk about in the next paragraph has the church re framing marriage as a totally religious rite. Then it became predominant due to the extent of the Holy Roman empire. Eventually, in the previous centuries, the concept of love entered into the picture of marriage Where love may have followed marriage previously, now love became a prerequisite to marriage.  But still in some societies and situations arranged marriages and marriages for business or nobility was present.

         When the Catholic church began to re frame the concept of marriage, it was not based on a scripture  or anything Jesus really said. This re framing was based on the ideas of St. Thomas. It would be interesting to explore St. Thomas and his writings, theories and personality to understand much of his works because not only did the Church re frame marriage, they re framed human sexuality into a narrow band that they still honor today. None the less, marriage was re framed as totally Sacramental and only for the purposes of procreation. As with any re framing, if you are persistent and have a large block of people on your side, history is squelched and any alternative meaning becomes lost. In essence the concept of marriage in the Church's view is what they wanted everyone to view as "it's always been so, since the beginning of time". That is just NOT so.

           Canon law, narrowly based theology and 'tradition' are what keeps alive the framing of marriage as it is in the Catholic church. Histories and learned theologians can tell you otherwise. I really encourage the reading of the book I mentioned above. It is sad if not sinful how ignorant people with a voice and power can spew such tripe that they feel is "thee correct and only view". Again, it is NOT so.

           If you look at scripture you not only see the variety of love relationships but the fundamental and the only valid mandate and that is "it is not good for man to be alone". Once you insert the loving embrace of Jesus into the picture you see that any relationship that sustains love, commitment and mutual respect and growth would be acceptable to God. 

          It would appear that the limits and re framing of marriage by the Church was done to merely promote a philosophy of St. Thomas. I prefer a marriage framed by God without the circular logic and restrictive musings of someone who is surely not God. However well intentioned, the re framing of marriage by the church is limited and wrong. 

         How does all this relate to the Popes' so called conciliatory words? Because the Pope's message, while loving and pastoral, only mentioned gay priests who may have strayed. Strayed how? Well, into homosexual activity and the Pope clearly noted redemption and the seeking of forgiveness. In other words, he will not judge being gay but it is still considered disordered and the activity of loving another human is still considered a grave sin that requires redemption.  The thought process of the Church has not changed one bit.  The attitude, idea and dogma that being a loving gay person is gravely sinful is still on the Church's books and it is more than likely that it will remain so.

         Rather than move forward with scientific  knowledge, rather than move forward with social knowledge about homosexuality, rather than honor a history in the church (pre-Thomas) that recognized homosexuality (even if that term did not exist), and rather than honour the loving message of scripture and Jesus, they choose to pin their dogma on less ancient and a restrictive theology and views on human sexuality. It was not always so and it should NOT be so.

         To quote my friend though, I too am cautiously optimistic. However, nothing short  of a spiritual revolution will allow the church to honour it's own marital history or the fact that a very large percentage of it's own priests are gay, active and hindered by the erroneous and onerous policy of celibacy.