Queer and Catholic? Join the Conversation.

One of the challenges in the past in dealing with the political issues around LGBT equality from a Catholic perspective is that the conversation has too easily been dragged down to the level of a shouting match which puts “religious belief” up against “civil rights”. In fact of course, the issues are more complex, and the simple repetition of slogans masks the real and cogent religious arguments in favour of equality and inclusion. I am convinced that when people of faith talk to each other from an agreed position of shared religious belief, progress can be made. So it is that I welcome the announcement by Catholics for Equality of a panel discussion between two notable public figures from each side of the argument. Gay Catholic journalist Andrew Sullivan and Maggie Gallagher of NOM together with two students, one each from College Democrats and College Republicans, will be engaging in “A Catholic Family Conversation on LGBT Issues”, at Georgetown University, Washington DC on Wednesday next week, 8th December. The panel will be chaired by E J Dionne.

If you will not be in DC personally (and I assume that most of you, like myself, will not be, never fear. You should nevertheless be able to follow the proceedings by an on-line  livecast at catholicsforequality.org/georgetown. (Alas, this will not help me, as I shall be in bed and asleep at that time).

 

Catholics for Equality Invites You to
A Catholic Family Conversation on LGBT Issues

Wednesday, December 8, 2010    8:30 – 10:00 PM (ET)
Georgetown University Intercultural Center Auditorium

WASHINGTON – LGBT issues are at the forefront of discussions in Catholic families, parishes and communities across the United States. Catholic families find themselves supporting their LGBT family members and friends, while at the same time are aware of the increasingly political role the US Bishops have taken against marriage equality, employment and military service, and immigration rights for LGBT people. This national “Catholic Family Conversation” will bring together leading voices on these issues to answer questions from college students preparing to return home for the Holidays.

The event will be livecast online at catholicsforequality.org/georgetown, with a live chat for Cathlolic college students from across the country to pose questions and add comments.

Who:
Andrew Sullivan, Atlantic senior editor, political commentator, author, blogger
Maggie Gallagher, National Organization for Marriage spokesperson, political commentator, writer
E.J. Dionne, Washington Post columnist, Brookings Institute senior fellow, political commentator, author
Hanna Lomax-Vogt, Georgetown College Democrats
Joel Knowles, Georgetown College Republicans
What:
A Catholic Family Conversation on LGBT Issues
Sponsored by the Georgetown College Republicans and Georgetown College Democrats
When:
Wednesday, December 8, 2010; 8:30 – 10:00 PM ET
Where:
Georgetown University Intercultural Center (ICC) Auditorium (get map)
Why:
To engage as a diverse American Catholic family in a civil discussion around LGBT issues currently being debated in U.S.politics.

 

Related Articles

Condoms and the “Marital Act”.

I got home late last night to find the news sites ablaze with reports that Pope Benedict has conceded that there could be some justification for the use of condoms “in certain cases”. Most reports see this (very slight) shift as significant: the Daily Telegraph headline calls it “historic”. Others are less convinced, noting that the example he gives is very specific, that of a male (homosexual) prostitute, for whom contraception is clearly a non- starter in the first place.

Condom Permitted?

Read the rest of this entry »

A Masturbation Conversation

We continue to live in the late Soviet period of Catholicism. They pretend to make sense; we pretend to believe them.

-Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Dish

When I suggested yesterday that we should be talking seriously about masturbation, I was not aware that Andrew Sullivan had done exactly that in a post at The Daily Dish back in January (“How Natural Is Masturbation?”), with a couple of follow-up posts to report on reader comments.

Here are some pertinent extracts:

Now there’s a topic for some interesting dialogue. The Catholic church proclaims that wanking is as serious a sin as gay sex because all sexuality is designed to be exclusively procreative – both as a matter of divine will but also, critically, because this is readily apparent to anyone by reason alone.

(This claim of justification by “reason alone” is a favourite in Church documents and of church spokesmen – but frequently signals that there is no justification whatever outside the closed reasoning of the Vatican mind, not apparent to outsiders.)

Shaw was certainly right in saying that 99 percent of men masturbate and 1 percent are liars. I once caused a little stir at Notre Dame by pointing out that every priest in the audience was masturbator, as of course they all were.

(One could reasonably dispute Sullivan’s precise figures here – but I am certain they are in the right ball-park).

From a reader:

Recently scientists have determined that, at least in a man’s older years, masturbation seems to have some preventative properties in relation to prostate cancer. Indeed, some doctors are now prescribing “masturbation therapy” to men over fifty. If further research sufficiently determines the health benefits of masturbation, will the Catholic Church endorse it on that basis? Even more importantly, can I get a return on the several hours of Hail Marys I said in penance in my teenage years?

And an observation which is relevant to so much of the orthodox sexual ethics:

Nature is an elastic concept. The Church’s grasp of it remains umbilically linked to the biology of the thirteenth century. And its allegedly celibate clerisy is the only group allowed to examine it. Hence what most adult, intelligent human beings regard as the hilarity of the hierarchy’s claptrap.

At least one reader was appalled.

I think your beliefs about masturbation are largely at odds with traditional Christian teaching. I’m surprised someone as smart as you are would not think more critically about this issue, especially since you are a self-described Christian.

Sullivan’s reply is that his argument is in fact deeply rooted in orhodox theology:

My reader misses the focus of my posts, which was on the arguments of the new natural law. This …..posits, after Aquinas and Aristotle, that nature, as observed by reason alone, tells us something about the purpose of human behavior and life.

When something is as ubiquitous as masturbation, when we now understand that massive over-production of sperm is in fact an evolutionary strategy to maximize chances of reproduction, and when we also notice that even in a marital, procreative relationship, a wife’s nine months of pregnancy renders all that spousal sperm incapable of producing children … then one wonders why rubbing one out from time to time is so unnatural.

From another reader, an important danger in the doctrine:

Telling teenagers in particular that both premarital sex and masturbation are sin, while providing no outlet for their proverbial raging hormones other than the delayed gratification of an ill-prepared prepared rush into marriage in their early twenties, sets an impossible and unhealthy standard.

Is the doctrine thereby contributing to disastrous marriages?And from one more reader, some thoughts based on real experience, not mere cerebral speculation:

The real objection the Church has isn’t that you are indulging in a lie. It is that you are indulging. The pleasure of any sexual activity, solo or otherwise, is a very inconvenient reality for the Church. One that priests are no better at denying themselves of than the rest of us. As much as the rational side of us might want to define sex as a utilitarian function, used only for procreation, no amount of scholarship can change the fact that it’s fun, that it feels good. That, at its best, it is ecstatic. Certainly not the kind of thing you want people engaging in if you’re trying to get them to forget about this world and focus on the next one.

On a personal note, my first wife, raised Catholic, had a great deal of guilt and anxiety about sex, and we had a truly awful sex life. Masturbation, although at times something of an indulgent vice, was also an activity I credit with keeping me somewhat sane through a highly frustrating time of my life, sexually speaking.

I can think of some Irish priests that maybe should have done a little more fantasizing and masturbating. Maybe not a long term answer, and certainly less fulfilling on so many levels than good sex mutually shared. But surely better that than preying on acolytes.

The Catholic Church originally instituted its policy of compulsory clerical celibacy in part as a means of control. It thereby created a two-tier caste system, whereby the supposedly celibate clergy were thereby perceived as morally superior – and the rest of the population, living sexual lives, were constantly faced with the prospect of falling into states of sin, which had perforce to be confessed to a priest for absolution.


Heterosexual Acts, Loving Homoerotic Relationships.

One of the nastier tricks of Vatican rhetoric, especially as displayed in “Homosexualitatis Problema”, is the uneven manner in which (approved) heterosexual relationships are described in terms of “conjugal love”, while (condemned) homosexual relationships are simply not mentioned, and the word “homosexual” is used only in terms of homosexual persons, “acts” (assumed to be genital), and “condition”.

The unfairness and lack of validity of this could be  quickly and easily demonstrated simply by reversing the procedure. How easy it it would be to lament the condition of the heterosexual male, intent only on self-indulgent sensual gratification, as demonstrated in the ubiquity of prostitution and pornography. Or, we could consider the one-sided nature of the institution of traditional marriage, marked by patriarchal domination, an expectation that male sexual needs should always be met, a disregard for the need (or sometimes even the possibility) of female sexual pleasure, and sometimes even domestic violence and marital rape.

Domestic Violence: Heterosexual Acts?

It would be easy, but I’m not going to go there. I am quite willing to accept that there must be many sound heterosexual relationships really are founded on genuine loving partnerships, based on equality of the partners. Logically, I am sure it is quite as possible for heterosexual marriages to be as emotionally healthy for both partners as homoerotic relationships.

Instead, I want to look at the other side of the comparison, at the quality of the love found in so many male couples, love which the Vatican resolutely fails to acknowledge. Read the rest of this entry »