25 SEPTEMBER - 

LETTERS TO THIS EDITOR

Sam Dargan's fine letter of yesterday has evoked quite a response from this blog's readers. I will relay two of the letters I received.

First, however, we have news on the legal front. The lawyers of the two sides presented briefs to Judge Dickson, of the circuit court, yesterday. Find information about this and the briefs here . As soon as I have a chance to read and ponder the new material, I will return with comments.

Now, to the letters in response to Dargan. The question at hand is whether homosexual Christians must refrain from same-gender sexual relations.

_________________________________________

Letter # 1

Dear Ron:

In response to Sam Dargan's letter: I suspect that one of the problems with those who advocate that homosexuals remain celibate is that, perhaps unconsciously, their thinking is informed by all sorts of sordid and age-old stereotypes and bugbears about gay men and their sexual practices: that we have sex indiscriminately, anonymously, ravenously, even publicly. But those things bear absolutely no relation to the reality of the lives of most gay men in 21st century America. Our sex lives, in most cases, are not very different from those of our heterosexual counterparts (aside from the obvious differences of "plumbing").

My own story may perhaps serve as an interesting example. I met my now now-husband thirty-four years ago. The attraction was instant and overwhelmingly powerful. And while it certainly had a strong erotic element to it, it was not entirely sexual in nature. Over the course of the next two years, we became friends. The aesthetic and erotic appeal only grew stronger, but it was paralleled by equally powerful and growing feelings of tenderness, affection, respect and companionship. It became, in a word, love. I could not have said then, nor could I say now, where the friendship ended and the love began, where the intellectual and spiritual bond began and ended and where they commingled with the sexual desire and the sheer delight of being in each company. I do not believe that things work terribly differently for most happy heterosexual couples, both at the outset and as the years go by.

Every single day, for thirty-two years now, we have lived in absolute happiness, complete monogamy and an ever-growing sense that our marriage is ordained by something much greater than our two selves and our personal preferences or inclinations. The profound and joyful instinct that compels us to live our lives together, including but by no means limited to seual expressions of our love for each other, is not of our own creation. It is, we believe, a gift from God.

We have lived together through professional triumphs and disappointments, through cancer scares and old house renovations, through weight gained and lost, through the death of beloved parents, and through dozens of Christmases and Thanksgivings and birthdays and anniversaries, sometimes shared with friends or family and sometimes just with each other. We have rejoiced at the birth of nephews and nieces and godchildren and danced at their weddings; now, we rejoice at the births of great-nephews and great-nieces. We have fasted during Lent and feasted on Easter. We have watched a lot of football, listened to a lot of music, painted and repainted the outside of our house multiple times, planted and harvested thousands of tomatoes, raised and doted on three lovable bird dogs, baked and eaten several tons of cake, read thousands of the same books, conversed for thousands of hours in two-and-a-half different languages about topics ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous, gone to the gym countless times, traveled to numerous countries on numerous occasions, and drunk more than our fair share of both champagne and bourbon. Most Sundays, we receive the holy sacrament of the Most Precious Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ kneeling next to each other at the rail of a church we love, like any devout married couple.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, my heart or my sour that God has been present for every single moment of this precious life with which we have been blessed. In fact, it is the individual, numinous moments of this shared life, and the never-ending, soul-deep gratitude I feel for those moments, that have continually revealed to me the truth of our most loving, merciful God, the Father Almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I am sure this is the case for most happily married believers. Nor is there any doubt in the minds and hearts of the many friends and family members who have witnessed and felt our love for each other---quiet and discreet but profound and utterly steadfast---that God has been, and continues to be, fully present in it all.

The sexual expression of a love such as this is by no means the dominant piece of the complex, interlocking puzzle that is a happy, healthy marriage. But neither is it dispensable. It is a part that cannot be separated from the whole---a true marriage is a union of hearts, minds, souls, and bodies. Celibacy would represent a nonsensical, even tragic, failure to honor that union and would not, I believe, serve God or the Church in any way. Just as devoted heterosexual couples express their love in a variety of ways, including by way of their sexuality, so too do we. Celibacy is no more an option for us than it would be for them.

Christopher Rivers

__________________________________

Letter # 2

Dear Ron:

To be sure, celibacy has a long history in the Church. We associate it with Jesus and St. Paul, with Mother Teresa, and with thousands of dedicated brothers and sisters serving Christ, particularly in the Roman Catholic Church.

Indeed, the Church has affirmed that lifelong celibacy is a spiritual gift and calling. But I am not sure about celibacy as a path that should be forced upon someone out of shame over their God-given sexuality. Not marrying is a worthy choice for Christians who are gifted with celibacy. But it seems to me that Jesus and St. Paul taught it must be a choice (see Matthew 19 and I Corinthians 7).

St. Augustine wrote "no one can be continent [celibate] unless God gives it." Ambrose wrote around the same time that lifelong "virginity cannot be commanded" and that "is the gift of few only."

More recently, the Franciscan monk, Fr. Richard Rohr, has been arguing that the Catholic church's insistence on imposing celibacy on clergy may be contributing to their ongoing sexual abuse scandals precisely because it is not a choice.

Pope John Paul II insisted that celibacy could not legitimately be forced on anyone. In his view, even clerical celibacy wasn't imposed upon anyone. After all, he said, those who felt called to marriage weren't obliged to pursue the priesthood. For him, marriage is an image of our ultimate union with Christ. On the other hand, celibacy, when properly undertaken, is not a rejection of marriage or sexuality. In fact, he believed it is a fulfillment of them. This has resonance with me.

The Church teaches that marriage is symbolic of our ultimate union with Christ and Him with His Church. Therefore, I believe that celibacy should be a calling meant to orient the person called more directly toward his or her ultimate marriage to Christ. By living out daily the true meaning of marriage, celibate Christians both affirm its goodness and remind married couples of its deepest meaning.

To your point about probable psychological damage caused by imposing celibacy on lesbian and gay Christians, the challenge of mandatory celibacy goes far beyond the mere capacity to tolerate it. It operates on the premise that lesbian and gay Christians must view all their sexual desire as sinful. Anyone doubting the deleterious nature of this imposition should walk a mile in the shoes of a lesbian or gay person who is told that their every sexual desire is sinful. Surely they can see how emotionally corrosive and damaging this could be over a lifetime.

If the purpose of celibacy is to affirm the basic goodness of sex and marriage by pointing to the relationship they prefigure: The union of Christ, humans, and the church, then mandatory celibacy for lesbian and gay Christians undermines this. It sends the message to lesbian and gay Christians that their sexual selves are inherently shameful. It is not a fulfillment of sexuality for lesbian and gay Christians, but a rejection of it.

In my view, our baptismal vow to respect the dignity of every human being means recognizing and rejoicing that some lesbian and gay people may be called to the gift of celibacy by God and choose it for themselves. However, for me, the Church imposing celibacy on all lesbian and gay Christians just because of their sexuality is anathema to all three legs of the "three-legged stool."

Faithfully,

Wayne Helmly

_______________________________________

My thanks to Rivers and Helmly for contributing these eloquent and moving letters.

I want to encourage everyone to write to me with your thoughts about these issues so crucial to our lives these days. Several people wrote to me yesterday and asked not to be published. I assure you I do not post comments without verifying with the writer and will not list names unless approved. So, email me if you just want to vent and have a listening ear. I have always been a good listener. I will keep it confidential. 

Everyone is invited to join the conversation on this blog. Any topic concerning the schism is welcome but the current strand of dialogue is whether sexual intimacy among homosexuals is inherently sinful or morally neutral. As I see it, DSC maintains that homosexual sex is inherently sinful and therefore non-celibate homosexuals must not be given equality and inclusion in the church while the Episcopal Church regards homosexual sex as morally neutral and therefore non-celibate gays and lesbians must be given full equality and inclusion in the church. The crux of the matter is celibacy or non-celibacy.

We have had a good start on a dialogue with excellent letters on both sides of the issue. I would like to keep the conversation going. We are waiting to hear what you think. Email at the address above.