ࡱ> bdaQ@ qbjbj͘ 8i$(84 (@ @ (h h h h h h RJh h h h '''Zh h ''"'IIh 4 ;rI0IdI((I\h  ' 46h h h ((((Human Sexuality Must It Be Church Dividing? Transcript, kindly provided by the speaker, of a talk given by Rev. Alan Morris to the Newman Association, Manchester and North Cheshire Circle on 6th November 2006. There can be few subjects more contentious than the welter of questions that storm around the subject of human sexuality. When Chris [Quirke, our Secretary] asked me to introduce this topic, I automatically assumed that Archbishop Rowan had already declined his invitation! Id like to make a series of suggestions and points in opening up this debate. Firstly, we are all only too aware of many other issues on which churches are divided from each other and within themselves. Can we learn something from the way in which debate is conducted in these areas? When I conduct reviews of LEPs (that is Local Ecumenical Partnerships, where two or more denominations share a building, a minister or both) where there is a major theological difference of opinion, say over Baptism, I always stress that it is crucial that we view those on the opposite side of the argument from ourselves as people of integrity, people who have reached their current position through a journey of integrity, and not as knaves and villains. Unless we are able to listen to each other, secure in the premise that we are all people of integrity, we would be better not to start merely slinging mud. It is wholly unhelpful constantly to be throwing insults at each other. One of my Anglican colleagues within Greater Manchester Churches Together, when told of a possible visit to the city of Rowan Williams, smiled dismissively and proclaimed with fervour, I will not be there; I will not be in the same room as that man. Needless to say, it was the fact that he considered Rowan to be unsound in the area of sexual ethics that was the source of his antipathy. As my colleague was utterly certain that he was right and the archbishop was wrong, it was, perhaps, a prudent decision not to risk being in the same room with him. Secondly, I want to try to look briefly at the whole area of human sexuality from within a Catholic perspective and to suggest that even here there is development and a little room for manoeuvre. Most folk in the street believe that the Catholic Church, crudely speaking, is anti-sex. In reality the absolute opposite is the truth. The Catholic Church deems marriage to be a sacrament because in that relationship in all its dimensions and I do mean all its dimensions a couple discover and reveal to each other and the world on a daily basis what God, what heaven is like. Thats what we mean by a sacrament. Marriage, rather than being an electrified cordon sanitaire thrown round the dangerous area of human passion, is exactly the opposite. By calling marriage a sacrament we are unequivocally and publicly rejoicing in Gods good gift of sexuality and declaring its expression within the publicly covenanted, lifelong commitment of marriage to be a foretaste of heaven. The standard Catholic teaching (thought it must be stressed not part of the infallible magisterium) is, however, that the genital expression of that sexuality is only legitimate within the confines of lifelong marriage; and, furthermore, that the first end of that genital expression is procreation, thought in latter years the unitive dimension of the relationship has come to occupy an almost equal joint first position, alongside procreation. However, the advent of the acknowledgment that the relational dimension of marriage might be co-equally as important as the procreative is a later addition to our tradition. That makes the Catholic position appear logically watertight. No sex outside marriage and no attempt mechanically or chemically to block the transmission of human biological life; and no divorce and remarriage. At times in the past and even in the present that watertight understanding has been a cause of crucifixion for many of the Catholic faithful, though best pastoral practice has tended to be merciful as in the Catholic bishops of England and Wales document: The Pastoral Care of Homosexual People, a document that was considered so merciful by Rome that it forced its withdrawal! That is not so surprising when one reads the 1986 Roman instruction to the bishops of the Catholic Church, which criticised the effect of the 1975 Roman declaration in these words: In the discussion which followed the publication of the [1975] Declaration . . an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. With its concentration of the rights or wrongs of objective acts, rather than on the dispositions of human persons, Catholic moral theology has also led in the past to some conclusions that today most folk would judge to be quite extraordinary. Take for example St Thomas Aquinas on the relative sinfulness of rape and masturbation. He considered rape to be less sinful than masturbation, because at least there, within the act of rape, the various biological entities were in their proper places, proper that is for the transmission of human life. I doubt whether many Catholics would follow the angelic doctor down that road today, though another of his assertions, that sex before the Fall was much more pleasurable than after a position out of step with Augustine is certainly worth pondering. Though we may have developed way beyond the angelic doctor in our teaching on rape and masturbation, the official Catholic position in other areas of sexual morality would still differ profoundly from many other churches: those that admit for example the legitimate possibility of mechanical or chemical contraception or divorce and remarriage or in vitro fertilization. However, in now recognising that a moral theology based solely on the rightness or wrongness of objective acts is inadequate to describe human behaviour properly, the Catholic Church has shifted its position somewhat and now focuses much more on the person as the moral agent, rather than on the objective condition of the act in isolation. This shift has enabled Catholic moral theologians to recognise that the relationship between married persons is a life-giving end in itself, of comparable importance to the transmission of biological life. After all, it is not good for man to be alone is Gods first reason for creating woman. There are yet further possibilities for development. (As you know, the Catholic Church never changes, it only develops!) By contrast with social ethics, sexual ethics within the Catholic domain has been founded largely on considerations of the Natural Law. This is a hugely subtle and nuanced conceptual framework, but it has in the past all too often been used in a blunt and ham-fisted way. Let me use an extended quotation from the English Catholic moral theologian, Fr Kevin Kelly in New Directions in Sexual Ethics to try to rescue the concept of Natural Law from an overly mechanical interpretation. He says this: the traditional natural law concept holds that our bodily givenness is only one dimension of our nature as human persons. Of itself, therefore, it does not provide us with any moral imperative, let alone one which is definitive and absolute. To discern what is in keeping with the good of the human person, integrally and adequately considered, we have to view our bodily givenness in the light of the other given dimensions of our being human persons. To do this we have to draw on the best knowledge our contemporary culture can offer us to help us understand ourselves as human persons. To reject as immoral same-sex love relationships and the mutually acceptable and enriching bodily expression of their love simply because they are considered against nature in the reductionist sense mentioned earlier hardly does justice to the Vatican II criterion of the human person integrally and adequately considered. Our bodily dimension certainly has to be taken into account since we are our bodies. But we are also more than our bodies. We are multidimensional persons. What is natural for us humanly and theologically can only be understood by looking at the wider context of our multidimensional richness. In that wider context it might well be possible to use the language of what is natural to express the positive goodness of the experience of gay men and lesbian women. (p73). Recently Kevin Kelly, with one eye on a subtle understanding of Natural Law, has made a bold bid to re-found Catholic Sexual morality on the basis of the dignity of the human person, a concept never far from the lips of Pope John Paul II. What Kevin Kelly is suggesting would do for moral theology what Einstein did for physics. Let me unpack that. The implications of Einsteins relativity are inconsequential for most of our daily round. But when we get to the realm of the very big or the very fast, at the margins of our experience, all sorts of things begin to change. Similarly, by founding moral theology on the dignity of the human person, knocking granny over the head and stealing her pension still remains wrong, but a married couple planning a family carefully with an eye to a whole range of issues of social and personal responsibility, no longer commit grave sin. A committed, engaged couple anticipating the marriage vows cease to be quite so readily described as living in sin. A married couple, one of whom has HIV, can use a condom to prevent the transmission of the deadly virus without committing a sin of equal gravity to procuring an abortion. And, according to Kevin Kelly, same sex couples could live together in a committed covenant relationship, genitally expressed, while promoting and enhancing their human dignity, witnessing to Gods good gifts of love and sexuality. And theres the crunch! While many of the other members of the Christian family have long since relaxed their understanding on divorce and remarriage, on contraception, in vitro fertilization, cloning and even abortion, the question of same sex partnerships still threatens to tear apart whole Christian communions. Of course, there would be those who could accept the dignity of the human person as a basis of moral theology, but who would still see two men living together in a committed relationship, physically expressed, as demeaning to the human dignity of those men. In a TV interview that I, myself, listened to, Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria declaimed this rhetorical question, How can a man USE another man as he would USE a woman? The understanding, implicit in the archbishops remark, pertaining to the rle of women and their dignity within the married relationship, is a challenge. Is it scripturally, theologically or, perhaps, culturally based? Well, I guess that Kevin Kellys comment on that statement would be clear: A gay relationship is commonly perceived in terms of one partner taking on the subordinate rle of a woman. Men see that as a form of betrayal. It introduces a Trojan Horse into the stronghold of patriarchy. (p65). He goes on to quote William D Lindsay as follows: the manifold forms of violence our society practises against gay people presuppose that nexus of social structures and attitudes feminist thinkers identify as patriarchy. A primary task of theologians concerned to see justice for gay people is clearly to show what hides within much anti-gay rhetoric: to show that such rhetoric is often not really about sexuality so much as maintaining patriarchy . . . . Christian moral theologians cannot continue to talk about the morality of homosexuality as if something more is not present in all that church and society say about homosexuality . . . And that something more is not merely homophobia: it is also misogyny, a haughty disdain for anything perceived by patriarchy as feminine. (p65). Another obviously crucial element in this difficult subject and one I believe explicitly recognised by Archbishop Rowan is the central proposition that the Bible is normative for the behaviour of Christian people. Now the Bible is assumed to be univocal in condemning homosexual acts as an abomination (Leviticus 18/22) a word used also of the eating of shellfish (Leviticus 11/10). My understanding is that Archbishop Rowan would like to see a much fuller exploration of the meaning of those biblical texts which address this thorny issue before anyone comes to a final judgement. Clearly, there are those for whom the meaning of the scriptural texts on this matter seems fixed and unmoveable. But there are those who think otherwise. Many years ago an American Jesuit, John McNeill, published The Church and the Homosexual. At its first printing it received a modest tick of approval an imprimi potest from his provincial, which was subsequently withdrawn, I guess under pressure from Rome. However, in the book, the then Fr McNeill attempted to take some of the classic scriptural texts concerning homosexual practices and interpret them afresh. For example, the Sodom text he re-interprets as a massive failure of the obligations of hospitality on behalf of the people of that city. Of the Old Testament witness as a whole Peter Vardy (lecturer in the Philosophy of Religion at Heythrop) says this: The Bible portrays homosexuality as a freely chosen activity there is no suggestion or discussion of the idea that inclination towards a member of the same sex may be a matter of genetics or background or the nature of the individual concerned. The lack of awareness of modern knowledge about sexuality radically undermines the usefulness of the biblical material as a guide to conduct today. It is worth noting that there is no condemnation of lesbian behaviour in either the Old or the New Testament. (p202). He goes on to cite William Countryman who maintains that the Old Testament prohibition against homosexuality is part of the Israelite prohibition against mixing different kinds of things. Each thing is held to have a particular nature and one must not bring together two natures. Thus there is a prohibition on: Using two materials together to make a garment. Having two different kinds of plant in one field. Different domestic animals mating (for example a donkey and a horse to produce a mule). A man assuming a womans rle. The same point is made in the prohibition against a man dressing as a woman. (p205). Sr Margaret Farley, Professor Ethics at Yale, adds three further thoughts on the Old Testament witness: There are two elements in Hebrew Bible perspectives on sexual conduct that influence almost all of its texts on sexual morality namely the obligation to marry and to procreate, and the patriarchal model upon which ideas of marriage and society were institutionally based. Given these perspectives, there is understandably little room for same-sex relationships. A third element influential in shaping the sexual rules of the Hebrew Bible is the concern to distinguish practices of the Israelites from what was considered the idolatry of neighbouring nations. The Leviticus prohibition against males lying with a male as with a woman (Lev 18:22, 22:13) is associated with this concern." (p273). She then adds, It is a disputed question whether some of even these few texts are referring to anything like what is meant by homosexuality today. The term as such does not actually appear in any of the original languages of the Bible, and the concept appears to have different, or at least more narrow, content than is generally given to it today. (p273). Of the New Testament Professor Farley says this: The Christian Testament . . . offers no systematic code of sexual ethics. The few texts that appear to refer to homosexuality offer problems of interpretation whether because of ambiguity in the use of rhetorical devices and specific terms, or disparity between the meaning of same-sex relationships in the historical context of Paul (Rom. 1:26-27, I Cor. 6:9, I Tim 1:10) and the meaning we assume for same sex relationships today. Contested interpretations of Romans I:26-27 provide an interesting and important case in point. The contemporary debate about this text has gone on for years, and can be tracked within, for example, the particular sexual behaviour, but rather to condemn the Gentiles for their general infidelity. . . . Martin argues that Paul was referring not to unnatural desires but to the unleashing of excessive, out-of-control desires. Degrees of passion, rather than object of choice, was the defining factor of desire. (p274, 275). She concludes: Standing before the biblical witness as a whole, a modest conclusion to be drawn is that there exists no solid ground for an absolute prohibition or a comprehensive unquestionable blessing for same-sex relationships and actions today, not in the Hebrew Bible or the Christian Scriptures. (p276). When it comes to the very Catholic consideration of the Tradition Professor Farley is equally arresting and worth quoting at length. She says this: As far as I know, no one today is trying to argue that homosexual relationships or actions should be condemned simply because the Christian tradition has always thought about homosexuality in a certain way. Moreover, it is by no means certain that it is accurate to say that Christians have always judged homosexuality negatively. The historical studies of scholars like Boswell have uncovered a much less univocal teaching and understanding through the centuries. Even where in the Christian tradition homosexuality has been negatively judged or positively judged, for that matter we must come to understand and evaluate the reasons for these judgments, their social and cultural context, and the consequences of the judgments for Christians in the past and the present. So long as the tradition continued to justify sex primarily and even solely as a means of the procreation of children, or sex in heterosexual marriage primarily as a corrective to a disordered and indomitable sexual drive, there was, of course, little or no room for any positive valuation of same-sex relationships. In much of Catholic moral theology and ethics, the procreative norm as the sole or primary justification of sexual activity is gone. As we have seen, procreation is still extremely important as a goal for some sexual intercourse, and as giving meaning to some sexual relationships; but new understandings of the totality of the person support a radically new concern for sexuality as an expression and a cause of love. The values of sexual intimacy, pleasure, and companionship are lauded as important elements in human and Christian flourishing. This means that, above all, the kind of deep suspicion of sexual desire and sexual pleasure that characterized both Catholic and Protestant traditions for so long has largely disappeared. Despite ongoing tensions in the traditions, and intense debates, some Protestant mainline churches notably the United Church of Christ have developed positive statements and attitudes toward same-sex relationships. And despite what I have said about official positions in the Roman Catholic Church, there are changes that should not be underestimated. Although homosexual genital actions are still judged to be intrinsically disordered, and hence objectively immoral, they can be subjectively moral depending on the state on mind and intentions of an individual person. Also, homosexual orientation in persons is not condemned; it is even accepted. Moreover, pastoral recommendations for welcoming gays and lesbians into the worshipping community are generally positive, although tensions remain.(p277ff). Professor Farley then goes on to articulate what criteria should characterize morally acceptable same-sex relationships and she comes to exactly the same conclusion as Kevin Kelly who sums up his position in these forthright and passionate words: I am utterly convinced that there are not two Gospel moralities, one for heterosexuals and one for gays and lesbians. I believe that the fundamental Christian human values and virtues apply equally to heterosexuals and to gays and lesbians, even though the precise way in which they are made flesh in real life will be affected by a persons sexual orientation. Moreover, sexual orientation is precisely that, an orientation, not a totally different form of sexuality. Consequently, I cannot accept that there is a fundamentally different sexual ethic for gays and lesbians. (p87). That brings us to the question of civil partnerships. It is important to recognise that, while there are striking similarities between civil partnerships in this country and civil marriage there is at least one remarkable difference. In civil partnerships there is no presumption of sexual intimacy. And for that reason a civil partnership cannot be dissolved on the grounds of non-consummation, while a civil marriage can. However, civil partnerships confer much the same property, inheritance, tax and pension rights as do civil marriages. The different Churches have different attitudes to civil partnerships. The Catholic Church does not condone civil partnerships. The Church of England allows its lay members to enter civil partnerships without prejudice to their rights as members of the Church, but technically will not allow its clergy to enter civil partnerships. It will not, however, allow a celebration of the civil partnership in church. As with all other major questions within the Church of England these ambiguous rulings are rendered all the more murky by actual practice which is anything but consistent and varies from diocese to diocese and from parish to parish. Within the Anglican Communion the situation is even more diverse and reaches from the depths of evangelical Nigeria with Archbishop Akinola to the Episcopalian Church of the USA ECUSA and Bishop Gene Robinson, living openly with his male partner. While the Methodist Church accepts that some of its members may enter civil partnerships there is an absolute moratorium for the moment on any church celebration to mark the vent. The United Reformed Churchs position is ambiguous, reflecting the original composition of the Church, combining the Congregationalist Churches and the Presbyterian Church. Overall the URC technically does not allow church liturgies to celebrate civil partnerships, but, recognising that some congregations have been Congregationalist and therefore in the habit of deciding these matters for themselves, they provide a suggested order of service for the ceremonies they do not permit! As within Baptist polity the Church Meeting is the authority within each congregation (and there is no such entity as THE BAPTIST CHURCH) practice varies. However, as the centre of gravity of Baptist theology is profoundly Calvinistic and evangelical, it would be surprising if church services to mark civil partnerships were anything but rare. The crucial question for the future unity of the Churches is this. Can Churches which disagree with each other about matters of human sexuality recognise each other as Christians of integrity who have reached their current stance through a journey of integrity? Can they recognise that there is a legitimate spectrum of moral theological and scriptural opinion or must there be only one narrowly defined opinion and all who hold any other be dastardly knaves? Can the Churches allow within themselves a licit range of opinion or must they expel those who dissent on this matter? In Catholic terms how far up the hierarchy of truths do these questions of human sexuality come? I fear that strident voices on both sides of the argument will not allow this scriptural and moral theological debate the space it needs to explore these difficult issues. The history of the Church is littered with copious examples of kairos moments when instead of choosing to research, explore, debate and unite, the Church has torn itself apart. One thinks of the crises at Ephesus in 431 and later Chalcedon in 450 when the Church in the East fractured down to this day. One thinks of the acrimonious, violent and even bloody debate over Justification in 16th century Europe. And then, by contrast, one thinks of the accords that the Catholic Church has signed with the Assyrian Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church and the World Lutheran Confederation, all within the last thirty years of the twentieth century, essentially recognising that, over the person of Jesus and the way in which his life, death and resurrection brings us salvation, there was, after all, no real difference of belief, only massive misunderstanding. No, I believe that questions about the meaning of human sexuality need not divide us if firstly we recognise that each contesting viewpoint is cloaked with integrity and secondly that we allow time to explore the issues in scripture and moral theology sufficiently profoundly. But I fear that currently none of these conditions is being, or is likely to be, met. New Directions in Sexual Ethics Kevin Kelly, Geoffrey Chapman 1998 Just Love: A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics, Margaret A Farley, Continuum 2006 The Puzzle of Sex, Peter Vardy, Fount 1997 The Living Tradition of Catholic Moral Theology, Charles Curran, Notre Dame, 1992 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, CDF, 1986 Honourably Catholic and Honourably Gay, Enda McDonagh, The Furrow, July ? 2006 An Ethic for Same-Sex Relations, in A Challenge to Love: Gay and Lesbian Catholics in the Church, Margaret Farley 1983 The Church and the Homosexual, John J McNeill, DLT 1977 Absolute Moral Norms, Charles E Curran, Christian Ethics, Cassell 1998 Sex, Sexuality and Relationships, Gareth Moore, Christian Ethics, Cassell 1998 New Patterns of Relationships: Beginnings of a Moral Revolution, Margaret Farley, Introduction to Christian Ethics, Paulist Press 1989 Aquinas: Fornication and Marriage, A Textbook of Christian Ethics, Robin Gill, T&T Clark 1995 Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, John Boswell, University of Chicago Press 1981 Sexual Ethics and the New Testament, Raymond Collins, Herder and Herder 2000 Invitation and Response, Essays in Christian Moral Theology, Enda McDonagh, Gill and McMillan 1972 Faith Beyond Resentment, Fragments Catholic and Gay, James Alison, DLT 2001 The Body in Context, Gareth Moore, SCM 1992 Freedom to be friends, Maurice Reidy, Collins 1990 Pastoral Care of Homosexual People, Bishops of England and Wales, Date ? DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and not necessarily of the Newman Association. Page  PAGE 6 of  NUMPAGES 7 -.M N j k <=01'(LM yz()gh}~4ɵɤv#hGh;5CJOJQJ^JaJhGCJOJQJ^JaJhW.]CJOJQJ^JaJ hW.]h;CJOJQJ^JaJ&h;h;6CJH*OJQJ^JaJ#h;h;6CJOJQJ^JaJ#hW.]h;5CJ&OJQJ^JaJ#hW.]h }5CJ&OJQJ^JaJ,. 6  ")s/0;3y7<|AEKKLN"PS7V $xa$gd; $a$gd;]^gd; $xa$gdW.]qq478 !!:";""" # ####$i$j$y$$$n%o%D&E&&&((j(k(((((@)A))*ͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼͼ#hGhW.]6CJOJQJ^JaJ#hGh;6CJOJQJ^JaJhQCJOJQJ^JaJ hW.]h;CJOJQJ^JaJhW.]CJOJQJ^JaJ#hW.]hW.]6CJOJQJ^JaJ#hW.]h;6CJOJQJ^JaJ3*****=+>+R+S+++5,6,g-h---..//11\2]22233344Y4`4a44?5@5q7R8S888998:9:b:c:::j;k;<<==>>>? ? ?ϯϯϯ#hGhW.]6CJOJQJ^JaJ#hGh;6CJOJQJ^JaJhW.]CJOJQJ^JaJ hW.]h;CJOJQJ^JaJ#hGh;5CJOJQJ^JaJhGCJOJQJ^JaJ> ?8???'@(@x@y@@@AA$A%AsAABBQCRCDDDDDD8E9EF F F@FFFGGUHVHIII J JJ@A7V8qq:?Bq;  &!&*#\*#di\*# *#L *#̯\*#*#E#*# d*# d*#d*#d$*#$*#$*#V*#V*#DV*#\V*#V*#V*#$a\*#da\*#a\*#*#*#*#T*#$*#d*#*#*#$*#d*#*#*#*#,*#l*#))e3e3j<q<uKuK|KVVVVVVV,W,W6WLXLX^X=_=_V_V_`(f(fsgsgghhii*i*ii      !"#$%))i3i3o<v<{KKKVVVVVVV5W>@@&A(AA B;C=C,N-NrQtQXceceeheseffJhPh1i7iiii33333333333333333333333333333s''r/y/=CECtQ{Q8iiiiiiiiiii Peter Havard;Z4 <GQW.]Q^wu }7UPF/:v6B5.+@i@@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial?5 z Courier New"qhj&gj& +Y6Y6#S24dzizi3QH(?PF1Human Sexuality  must Must It Be Church Dividing Peter Havard Peter HavardOh+'0 , DP l x  2Human Sexuality must Must It Be Church Dividing0uma Peter Havardty eteete Normal.dotd Peter Havardty 11eMicrosoft Word 10.0@@< @vD@lY՜.+,0 hp|   6ziA 2Human Sexuality must Must It Be Church Dividing Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCEFGHIJKLMNOPRSTUVWXZ[\]^_`cRoot Entry Fe1TableDWordDocument8SummaryInformation(QDocumentSummaryInformation8YCompObjj  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q