DISQUS

contemplativecatholic · 2 months ago

thanks so much for this post. These things need to be heard

WDL · 2 months ago

Thanks, Contemplativecatholic. Please feel free to copy and share this post with others, if you wish. If it says something that helps, then I'm glad to have it shared.

wildhair · 2 months ago

I thought Christ brought everything to the church.

The church, at least the Vatican, is locked into a very narrow natural law theology. Until the Vatican accepts the human sciences and the truth they bring, they will continue to come up with these "logical" and limited decisions.

WDL · 2 months ago

I agree wholeheartedly, wild hair. The biologistic understanding of natural law doesn't serve the Catholic church well, for precisely the reasons you give.

terenceweldon · 2 months ago

Of course the theology is backward - totally arse about face, as the Brits like to say. But that is what we expect.

I'm more interested in the good news in this story:

"Father Alessandro Santoro gave his blessing to the marriage, which was attended by some 200 people, despite the Roman Catholic Church advising him not to go ahead with it."

And why did he go ahead? It's not because he is a committed church dissident, or deliberately seeking to make trouble. No, it was because he was caught between two conflicting loyalties, to the hierarchy and to his congregation. The latter own out - quite rightly. It was ""an act of loyalty to my congregation, to the church and to the people that I love. It was my duty". Quite so.

It will not be until more of us recognise that we have an obligation to each other, which takes precedence over any loyalty to Rome, that the Church will again reflect true Gospel values.

WDL · 2 months ago

Terry, very good point. This is a story not only about some warped sacramental theology on the part of one Vatican official, but also about the faithfulness of an "ordinary" pastoral to his pastoral duties.

I did want to highlight the warped theology, though, because I think at some level, the assumption that some people don't bring anything to the church informs the attitude of many church officials today. They seem willing to write off millions of Catholics who are walking away in silence, on the grounds that they don't really bring anything to the church.

I think this mentality governs the church's pastoral approach to gay folks--which is non-existent. But it increasingly governs the attitude of Rome to many of the faithful in the developed nations, who raise critical questions about how authority is exercised and about some church teachings.

jaydencameron · 2 months ago

Wonderful post and I can only second Terence's comment - "It will not be until more of us recognise that we have an obligation to each other, which takes precedence over any loyalty to Rome, that the Church will again reflect true Gospel values." But there is something so wonderfully iconoclastic about this incident, so paradoxical and 'absurd' in it's ability to shock and shake up the narrow mindset of Vatican officialdom.

WDL · 2 months ago

Jayden, you're right. There's something novelistic about this story. It brings to mind that book--the title is long since gone from my head--written some decades ago about a "simple" Italian priest who just went along doing what he was called to do, regardless of how that played out in the chancery. I suspect there are priests in many places who'll be sympathetic to Fr. Allessandro for putting pastoral choices about politically expedient ones.

DoubtingThomas · 2 months ago

Ehh...I am probably about to walk into a minefield here but I am going to try to explain a possible justification for the reason that the Church marries heterosexual couples that are unable to have children while not allowing homosexual, and apparently, transgendered couples.

For one, infertile couples are all over the Bible. Issac, John the Baptist, Samson, the prophet/judge Samuel are all examples of Biblical characters, important characters, who are the offspring of children beyond natural child bearing age or considered infertile. There is a strong Scriptural tradition for God blessing these unions with children who grow up to do His Will in mighty ways.

In regards to sexual ethics, although it is unlikely that these unions will be fruitful with regards to children there is always the possibility. As for infertile couples, the act itself would produce children under normal circumstances but for whatever reason and for no fault of their own, one or both of the partners is unable to produce children. The act is not closed to the creation of life, either by its nature or through any barriers that might be used.

I think the ban has more to do with the nature of the act itself than with the possible outcomes of it.

WDL · 2 months ago

"In regards to sexual ethics, although it is unlikely that these unions will be fruitful with regards to children there is always the possibility."

But that's just not true, Thomas. In many of these cases, we know absolutely that the heterosexual couple being married cannot and will not have a child. And if we're going to argue for the counterfactual possibility of a miracle, then why wouldn't we argue that miracles also apply in the case of a same-sex person?

If we're basing our theology of marriage on the miraculous possibility that a woman of 70 will conceive or a man who is sterile will father a child, why not extend that miraculous possibility to gay couples? If it's all about overturning the laws of nature, why limit God's power by specifying which kinds of nature may be overturned by miraculous activity?

I also don't think that basing a theology of marriage on the stories of married couples in the scriptures is a very good theological move, given the fact that polygamy was the norm for a large part of sacred history.

Your logic definitely does lead to the point the church seems to want to make: as you say, "the act itself" is the "right" act to be procreative, if a miracle could happen and sweep away the barriers to procreation for an elderly couple or one unable to conceive.

But if you think about it, doesn't that seem like a rather strange way to think about what makes a marriage a marriage? It's all based on "right" acts and "wrong" acts. It's all based on acts. Not on the quality of the relationship between the two partners.

This strange focus of Catholic sexual ethics on acts, and on which sexual acts are right and which are wrong, seems wildly at odds with many folks' experience of themselves as sexual beings, and with their experience of intimate relationships.

DoubtingThomas · 2 months ago

btw
I agree with most of your arguments concerning the nature of the sacraments. We can bring nothing to the church, other than the gifts which God has bestowed on us. As Paul said, "there are many parts, we are all one Body" and we all have different gifts which are given for the glory of God.

colkoch · 2 months ago

Doubting Thomas, you have hit on the official rationale. A very close friend of mine was married in the Church in spite of the fact his wife to be had had a hysterectomy. When I asked him how they got around the procreation aspect, he said they were told exactly what you wrote, that there could be a miracle.

Really, I said, that would be quite the miracle--no uterus and all. He sheepishly laughed and then said he no longer had any objections to gay marriage. All in the interests of not being a flaming idiot hypocrite he said.

What we bring to the church is our capacity for honest relationships and love. This is the story about a very honest relationship and I love it. Kudos for a priest that gets priesthood.

WDL · 2 months ago

"What we bring to the church is our capacity for honest relationships and love."

Amen, Colleen. And what a sane tenet to build a theology of sexuality and marriage around, it seems to me--rather than around "right" and "wrong" acts.

The Gospel According to Hate · 2 months ago

I was a priest in the Catholic Church, I am no longer. I left amid the sex abuse controversy, because I couldn't stand to be a party to the crimes and cover up being committed by clergy around me. That said, I thought the following Canons might ad to the discussion.

According to Canon Law, impotence by its very nature invalidates a marriage. I argued until I was blue in the face with my seminary professors about this one, but if a man is unable to get it up or if he's been in some sort of accident that causes impotence, then he can't be married in the Catholic Church. Unless, the priest conveniently omits this information during marriage prep and tells the couple to keep their impotence a secret. Therefore, lie to get married in the Church.

Stranger so, according to Canon Law, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage. So, someone who voluntarily gets sterilized (against Catholic moral teaching) or who chooses not to have children during their childbearing years (in violation of God's order to be fruitful and multiply) can be married in the Church, but someone who by no fault of their own suffers from either genetic or injury-induced impotence cannot be married in the Church. I find this flawed logic repugnant.

My opinion: the Church's marriage law is a mess. They should get out of marriage all together.

Here are the Canons:

Canon 1084.1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.

Canon 1084.3 Without prejudice to the provisions of canon 1098, sterility neither forbids nor invalidates a marriage.

WDL · 1 month ago

Ht, thanks for this informative posting. I've long been puzzled about how Canon 1084.1 plays out in the pastoral life of the church. It seems to me extremely intrusive on the part of a pastor to try to verify that someone is impotent or sterile prior to marriage--and then to forbid marriage on that grounds.

Since I don't hear of this happening, I've assumed that in actual practice, most pastors would not try to prohibit the marriage of a couple where one or the other partner is unable to conceive. I know of many such couples who have married in the Catholic church, with--to my knowledge--no problems at all.

I do know of at least one bishop, however, who is a staunch JP-II generation bishop, who wrote his dissertation on a canon that seems to suggest that a marriage consummated with the male using a condom is not a valid marriage. I'm told that, prior to being made a bishop, when he sat on his diocese's annulment board, he always took the hardest line possible to refuse an annulment--against the views of a majority of others on the board.

I agree with you: the church's position on marriage and sexual ethics in general is a horrible mess. So much would have been accomplished had Paul VI listened to the theological commission he struck to advise him on artificial contraception.

Which is to say, so much would have been accomplished in the church had the church been willing to listen to the experience of the laity in these matters.

The abuse situation with its cover-ups and crimes all has to do with keeping the clerical system intact at all costs. And the cost is enormous, for the church.

I'm sorry you left. At the same time, I also completely understand. Thanks for including your blog's url with your username here. I'll visit your site with interest.

Diane · 2 months ago

She was not a transgendered women, she is simply a woman who once was a transsexual.
I am a Catholic woman who over 25 years ago married my husband. I had sex surgery, (not transgender since that is brain) to bring my brain and gender into conformance and that surgery was done almost 40 years ago and my baptismal certificate was changed by the church.
I take communion every holy day of obligation, my husband was buried from our church with all the honors due him and I am listed in the Book of Remembrance as his wife.

WDL · 2 months ago

Thank you for reminding me of the debate about the meaning of the terms "transgendered" and "transsexual," Diane. I appreciate the reminder.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding your point in recounting your experiences in your parish. I'm glad you find acceptance in your parish--and I wish all parishes could provide the kind of home you describe for trans people.

terenceweldon · 2 months ago

Diane, I thank you too for this contribution. I am impressed that surgery was done 40 years ago - your must have been one of the pioneers - and that the church was willing to change your baptismal certificate.

This is a great example of how things should be done. I wonder though, how many parishes would be able or willing to do the same thing today ? Is this a decision (on amending baptismal certificates, not on the marriage) that can be taken at local level? Are there set procedures in canon law today to regulate or prohibit such changes?