Sunday, July 8, 2012

Frustrating

Radical trad and conservative Catholics are frustrating sometimes. For example, this was recently featured at Rorate Caeli with the implied insinuation that this was somehow a "Vatican II moment" involving yet another prominent hierarch, a cardinal even, advocating heresy or something not in keeping with the Faith:

The Church must rethink its approach to remarried divorcees and gay relationships, the world's youngest cardinal has said.

Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki, 55, made his comments in an interview with the German weekly Die Zeit and said that while the Orthodox Church considers only the first marriage sacramentally valid, divorce and a second marriage is tolerated.

Asked whether this could be a model for the Catholic Church, he replied that the Church should talk about it. Commenting on gay men in relationships he said he tried not to see them as just violating natural law but as people trying to take responsibility for each other in lasting partnerships.

"We must find a way of allowing people to live without going against church teaching," he said.
The trads in the combox went crazy, of course.

When I tried to comment, my comments were never approved.

Specifically, I made two points. The first was sharing the idea I have written about here before about how Catholic and Orthodox approaches to marriage can be reconciled

Some Catholics think, "Well, it's easy enough, we just need to recognize Orthodox 'divorces' as equivalent to an annulment granted by the bishop. There's no need to require the legalistic bureaucratic Western canonical process." But, as I explained, it's a little more complicated by that. The Orthodox are disturbed by the notion inherent in the annulment mentality that "nothing actually happened" if the first marriage is annulled. As if it was all just unintentional fornication. No, they say, the first marriage needs to be recognized as a real human relationship that tragically broke down due to sin.

The problem seems to lie in the Western "all or nothing" notion that, between two baptized parties, a marriage is either the Sacrament or it's Nothing At All, merely "putative." I've suggested that this may not, in fact, be dogma (though Ott suggests it is) but rather a Western canonical situation that is unessential. Perhaps two Christians can, in fact, contract a natural but non-Sacrament marriage. There are some other caveats that would have to go along with this (such as the sinfulness of two baptized parties contracting a "merely" natural marriage on purpose and a corresponding obligation to convalidate as soon as possible), but if annulled marriages could be recognized as having been valid natural marriages, even "sacramentals," then the Orthodox "penitential" approach to subsequent marriages might be more intelligible and they, on their part, might be more willing to admit the "annulment" idea at least relative to the Western definition of what constitutes a Sacrament strictly-speaking.

The second point I tried to make, however, more importantly, was that the Cardinal doesn't seem to be approving of sin here. He doesn't seem to be talking about altering Church teaching on adultery or sodomy, and in fact makes that very clear in the last line. I think, instead, he is getting at the same thing Cardinal Schonborn has tried to get at (though Schonborn did so a little more sloppily, I think). Namely: we have to figure out a (non-scandalous) way to recognize the validity of human relationships, even if we can't, of course, validate the sin any such relationship may contain (and what relationship doesn't?)

That's all I said. I don't know why Rorate found that so controversial.

However, I'll say a bit more here. I've written about this before rather recently. The "living in sin" notion really doesn't make much sense. People sin or they don't; there aren't two tiers of sinners. Acts are sinful, human relationships are not (though they may be marred or deformed to different degrees by sin.) For most divorced and remarried couples, or cohabiting couples, or gay couples, sex acts (if they take place) are not the basis of their relationship. As someone on a comment I read once said, you don't need to get married or move in together to have sex! Frankly, you don't need any sort of committed or long-term relationship, period; you need twenty minutes...

No, when people make that commitment, it's not about sex. Sex may or may not be taking place (in our culture, it's probably likely) but if it is, it's a separate question that should be dealt with as individual acts just like all other sins. I mean, we don't generally construct a man who lives by himself and happens to masturbate sometimes as "living in sin with himself" as if that's the basis of his "lifestyle" after all. No, it's something abstractable. He shouldn't receive communion until he's been to confession, of course, and made a contrite resolve to stop (even if he knows, given his own patterns, that it is likely he'll fall again if he is being honest). But generally we don't require "humanly impossible absolute guarantees of an irreproachable future conduct."

But then for divorced and remarried couples, cohabiting unmarried couples, and gay couples...we have this double standard, as if it is the relationship itself that is the problem, and not merely the acts which may (or may not) be going on in private. The relationship itself is, even, treated as public "proof" or equivalent to the private acts and so conservatives will often advocate for denying these people communion (even though plenty of married couples use contraception privately and then still take communion; they shouldn't either, of course, but the point is the double standard).

This attitude needs to change. I think this is what Cardinals Woelki and Schonborn are talking about. Human committed relationships need to be affirmed and validated in a manner that constructs them as separate from whatever sin they may contain, abstracted from it and redeemable in spite of it.

The Church already has some precedent for this regarding the divorced and remarried, as I've said before: these couples are allowed (especially if it is a question of young children involved) to live "as brother and sister." This is considered a morally permissible option if occasion of sin can be mitigated, and they are then invited to confess and resume taking communion (though, I'd point out: who is ever going to know what's really going on behind closed doors? But also, on the other hand: who are we to ever make any assumptions??) However, there is still an unease about this situation, as if it's something to be tolerated but not celebrated. But especially if we are imagining sin has ceased, what's wrong? Surely the first divorce is tragic, but is this human relationship bad? The same question can be asked for homosexual couples, etc.

I don't see this happening for some time (though, the sooner the Church gets around to it, the less credibility we'll lose!) but I would even suggest, then, implementing some sort of Church recognition of these relationships (even while making the moral expectations regarding chastity very clear). If a married couple can "live as brother and sister," then perhaps the Church should implement a sacramental to bless this, a sort of "adopted siblinghood" (or, perhaps, more like "step-siblinghood," to avoid the notion of the taboo of incest if the two do fall into sin together.) The same could be done for gay couples; recognize "adopted brotherhood" or "spiritual sisterhood" or whatever. In fact, rituals of fraternatio or adelphopoiesis existed in the Church in the past, and still find some practice in the Eastern churches.

This sort of brother-making (or sister-making, or sibling-making) was not and is not marriage, at least not in the traditional Christian sense of the word (Boswell is wildly incorrect there). But, as I've said before, "marriage" is just a word, and which aspect of relationships are being primarily emphasized or described by it is subject to linguistic usage. (Indeed, nowadays, when a man asks a woman to marry him, is the emotional essence of that statement "be the mother of my children?" even if that is also implied, or is it "spend your life and find your home with me?" There's a good case to be made that, nowadays, people emphasize the life-partner aspect of marriage as essential, and as such it makes sense that other non-mating couples would want the same recognition). 

As such, though it would not be Holy Matrimony in the Catholic understanding, I would not think contracting civil marriage for legal purposes would be intrinsically immoral or unethical for such couples, as a way to establish their kinship legally, though (with the Scottish Christian Party) I'd rather prefer Civil Partnerships legislation that takes "the criteria [...] out of the bedroom and into the living room - sexuality should play no role because it discriminates against these other partnerships."

The point is, the Church could recognize (and not just in toleration, but in celebration) human committed relationships and partnerships without implying any sort of recognition for the sin they may (or may not!) contain. A re-sourcing of rituals of brother-making could be established as sacramentals to explicitly recognize the "brother-sister" relationships (already a model offered to them by the Church sometimes) of the divorced and civilly remarried, or of homosexual partners, and (like actual siblings) the benefit of the doubt could be given publicly regarding their chastity (which would in reality remain a matter between the couple and their confessors or spiritual directors and God). 

In fact, if the Church offered this sort of model (even if some would be inclined to call it a fig-leaf), perhaps people would find chastity more appealing or not feel as if unchastity was required for them to not be alone in life, and provide an understanding or model of life-partnership that was not constructed as necessarily sexualized or "matrimonial" (ie, taking heterosexual mating as its primary analogy, as most such relationships do currently, merely since that is the only model we currently have for companionate relationships or domestic partnerships).

However, given what I see on Rorate Caeli and other conservative and traditional Catholic forums online...I sadly think it will be a long time before anything like this is officially recognize or implemented, if ever, and we're going to wind up driving a lot of people away because of it. 

However, even if there is no formal Church recognition, I'd encourage individual Catholics to treat couples they know in such situations with this sort of compassion and benefit-of-the-doubt giving, recognizing and affirming and validating their relationships in spite of whatever sin might happen to take place sometimes (since the relationship cannot be reduced to that as if it is the essence). 

And I'd extend my support to any such couples who decide to forge ahead (hopefully striving for chastity; though even if not, as I've said, that still doesn't invalidate the relationship), encouraging them to express their commitment before God in whatever way they can find (we should remember that canon law already recognizes private vows undertaken for any just cause, and that there are already all sorts of generic blessings), protecting themselves legally in whatever way they need to (not worrying about semantics), and to remain witnesses in the Church (with whatever level of discretion they feel is appropriate) to the goodness, regardless of any marring by sin, which is to be found in all human love and relationship.

10 comments:

Bridget said...

I'm sorry, but I find your approach quite disingenuous. "One doesn't have to move in together to have sex!" and "Namely: we have to figure out a (non-scandalous) way to recognize the validity of human relationships, even if we can't, of course, validate the sin any such relationship may contain (and what relationship doesn't?)"

The point is, if you are going to have sex then you SHOULD move in with each other. And while every relationship may contain sin, not all relationships are formally established on one. The expression "living in sin" precisely reflects this formal element, and your failure to recognize it strikes me as mischievous. 

A Sinner said...

I don't think any relationship is "formally established on sin"

If that's your understanding or that of conservatives regarding various forms of companionate relationships or life-partnerships (even if sex does sometimes occur)...I think we've gotten to the root of how warped conservative and reactionary thought is.

Bridget said...

Well if the matter were "companionate relationships" we would expect to see as many live-committedly-together relationships involving an heterosexual man with an homosexual one as we see relationships involving just two  homosexual men.  But we don't. And those of us who strive to conserve common sense against leftist gnostics know that this is because the nature of the "companionate" flower is inseparable from the root that precedes and sustains it, and that this root may grounded in that which is Godly or unGodly. 

A Sinner said...

No, we wouldn't expect to see as many, because presumably most heterosexual men who CAN find a wife WILL want to find one, because then they get BOTH a companion AND a mate (and so, potentially, their own biological offspring, etc.) However, I wouldn't be surprised if within the clergy there were some pairs of the make-up you describe like that.

However, the "root" or the "ground" of all these relations...is love. Nothing other.

We can quibble over semantics. Is it "eros" is it "romantic" etc. (I don't think either is intrinsically problematic, as neither is simply identifiable with Lust).

But to suggest lust or unchastity is the "root" or "ground" of these relationships (even if/when they do contain it; as is admittedly likely in the current cultural climate) and that that is what "sustains" them...is just so offensive I don't know where to begin, and makes me wonder if that's likewise how you are viewing [opposite sex] marriages.

If so, that strikes me as sad and warped. Whatever may or may not be going on in the bedroom, these relationships are actually "about" the living room, and those involved in them would tell you so. It's about having a partner, not a sex partner (the latter can be found easily, and often with more variety, WITHOUT any sort of life commitment)...

Robert said...

I found a translation of a French "Ordo ad Fratres Faciendum" Alan Bray, a historian, found this rite. It seems to mirror the marriage rite in that there is the blessing followed by a mass. http://www.titipu.demon.co.uk/samesexunions/ordo.htm

A Sinner said...

I've seen that before. Technically, I don't think it is a Mass. Rather, it is one of those blessings (like for the Palms on Palm Sunday) that is structured with all the elements of Mass (liturgy of the word, propers) but which is not.

Of course, the Palm Sunday one probably WAS originally, but later in history they started making solemn blessings in that form without ever having had a Mass in the first place. (The Book of Blessings, of course, has taken this idea to an extreme by making EVERY "blessing" it contains in the format of a Liturgy of the Word, etc, which strikes me as so unnecessary and clunky).

I'd question how much this means it "mirrors" the rite for Holy Matrimony. Many blessings/sacramentals used to take this format.

If there are similarities in the texts themselves, that would be another question.

A Sinner said...

Given that it's not a currently approved rite, I'm not sure that ritual in itself would do anything today.

However, when I said I "encouraging them to express their commitment before God in whatever way they can find (we should remember that canon law already recognizes private vows undertaken for any just cause, and that there are already all sorts of generic blessings)"...what I had in mind was perhaps something like this:

Such a couple could have a Mass said by a sympathetic priest. Perhaps the Mass of Thanksgiving, or some other appropriate Votive Mass. They could then (after the homily?) exchange private vows of "brother/sister/sibling-hood and loyalty" (and, possibly, celibate chastity if they were in fact ready and willing to formalize that commitment) ala traditional "blood brotherhood" pacts, and then the priest could pray some "private" prayers (indeed, perhaps drawn from that ritual) as a lead-up to a blessing (which can be accomplished by a simple sign of the cross, it doesn't need to be a specific blessing).

This would seem to effectively accomplish a "fraternatio" in a totally licit way (in the form of canonical private vows, which can promise anything you want) using the means that are ALREADY available in the Church.

Bridget said...

Now you seem a to argue from a strange position of romantic utilitarian immanentism, where the whole never amounts to more than the sum of its idealized parts, and each part can be quantifiably measured against any other. Thus, "A" can form a companionate relationship with "B", and a sexual one with "C", but wait, he can form both with "D", therefore obviously he'll choose the latter. But what if the companionship with "B" proves more companionable than that with "D", and the sex with "C" more sexually gratifying than with "D", then wouldn't "A" be better off dropping "D" and taking up with both "B" and " C"?
After all, if the bedroom doesn't inform the living room, and the living room doesn't inform the bedroom, what objection can there be?
It is probably worth pondering that the Church condemns homosexual activity because it is disordering of the WHOLE life (see, I can write in capitals too.), and that "lust" (your word, not mine) and homosexual activity are both symptoms of a disordered eros which suffuses, and orients, the whole life.
We are called to holiness, and holiness cannot be compartmentalized. Sin renders the whole man sinful, not just one part of him, leaving other parts untouched. 

http://communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/DCS31-4.pdf

A Sinner said...

"Thus, 'A' can form a companionate relationship with 'B', and a sexual one with 'C', but wait, he can form both with 'D', therefore obviously he'll choose the latter. But what if the companionship with 'B' proves more companionable than that with 'D', and the sex with 'C' more sexually gratifying than with 'D', then wouldn't 'A' be better off dropping 'D' and taking up with both 'B' and 'C'?"

Maybe he would, but alas that just isn't "done" in our society, and would start to get rather sticky I assume.

Though I suppose you can find cases where a straight man has a wife but also a live-in (or next-door) best male friend who is really more the source of his socio-emotional needs.

Inversely, a homosexual man could have his companion AND a wife, I suppose. Perhaps a pair of lesbians marries a pair of gay men and the marriages work "horizontally" even though the "companionship" works "vertically."

So it's possible, I suppose, hypothetically. But I doubt very much you'll see it in practice, it's just not done, and I assume could get rather complicated.

"After all, if the bedroom doesn't inform the living room, and the living room doesn't inform the bedroom, what objection can there be? It is probably worth pondering that the Church condemns homosexual activity because it is disordering of the WHOLE life"

In the end, all sins disorder our whole lives. But we don't condemn the single life or living alone on account of assumed masturbation or anything like that. People are able to make the abstraction and distinction. THIS is what is common sense.

"'lust' (your word, not mine) and homosexual activity are both symptoms of a disordered eros which suffuses, and orients, the whole life."

Well, I simply disagree with that. The logic of the disordered language goes from acts to desires. The acts are disordered, and so desire for those acts specifically is too.

Any logic that goes in the opposite direction (ie, which condemns the acts on account of a negative of assessment of the orientation conceived more broadly in the abstract) is, I have to think, simply homophobic.

"We are called to holiness, and holiness cannot be compartmentalized. Sin renders the whole man sinful, not just one part of him, leaving other parts untouched."

I don't disagree here. I'm not trying to say the sin is okay. But if you were to apply this logic to someone's life instead of relationship, you'd wind up saying someone who sins should end his life, or that his life is made worthless by it.

But we don't say that.

Terence Weldon said...

Underlying this thoughtful analysis is an important concept: issues of relationship, and of celibacy, do not necessarily co-incide.
Today, we assume that marriage does (and should) include sex and fecundity, but it was not always so. In the very early church, celibacy, not procreation, was viewed as the ideal - even within marriage. (Even leading some early saints to castrate themselves, to avoid the possibility of yielding to temptation with their wives).

Today, celibacy is no longer recommended for married couples - but it is for priests, and for homosexuals. For priests, Pope Benedict noted last year that celibacy is "difficult", but becomes easier when lived in community - highlighting the importance and value of relationships.

For the unmarried who have not taken a deliberate vow of celibacy, and are not living in religious communities, the need for simple human relationships is even greater. The church needs to recognize, and bless these - for the divorced, and for same- sex couples.

Within these relationships, decisions about celibacy are a separate matter - and I value your recommendation that outsiders have no business judging or making assumptions about what goes on between those two.