I’ve just finished reading Don’t mess with Marriage, the recent letter from the Australian Catholic Bishop’s Conference, warning of the dangers of same-sex-marriage and it made me angry.

bishops
Firstly, I don’t understand how a group of celibate Caucasian men who presumably have no experience of relationships, let alone same-sex relationships set themselves up to advise on these relationships.
Of course the bishops will quote traditions spanning hundreds of years of theology and papal infallibility developed by its Magisterium and accumulated by other groups of middle-aged, celibate men with no experience of intimate relationships. This is a tricky basis to launch an attack on same-sex relationships.
The embarrassment of clerical sexual abuse hangs over a church determined to cling onto the high moral ground and this shame punctures all church statements on morality.

But first let me respond, point by point to each of the bishops’ arguments.

  • Respect for all

The document opens with a prologue, asserting ‘respect for all’ even for gay people apparently and expressing an understanding of their ‘deepseated homosexual tendencies for whom this well may be a real trial.’ There’s so much mistaken and patronising about a statement like this that it’s difficult to know how to start dissecting it.
To summarise same-sex identity as a collection of ‘tendencies’ already demonstrates an innate ignorance about what it means to identify as gay. A tendency is a kind of wishy-washy inclination in a particular direction, while being homosexual goes to the root of a person’s identity. Nowhere in the document do the bishops discuss ‘heterosexual tendencies’. Evidently these men have not been paying attention to developments in contemporary psychology. And no, it’s not a ‘trial’ to be gay, bishops, no more than the ‘trials’ of being an ordinary human being.
The document goes on to call for ‘respect, acceptance and understanding’ for gay people, evidently ignorant of how patronising their statements are. I don’t need or crave the Church’s acceptance or understanding. Unfortunately the document manages to be disrespectful in its prologue. In the light of the Church’s official position on homosexuality the prologue sounds insincere.
And to put the record straight (!) the Church’s official teaching on homosexuality is as follows:
‘ Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.’
That doesn’t sound like ‘acceptance’ to me.

  • Marriage equality and discrimination

This section deals with a number of imagined problems which may result from same sex marriage and imagines their effects on traditional marriage. The bishops offer the argument that ‘if marriage is an institution designed to support people of the opposite sex to be faithful to each other…it is not discrimination to reserve it to them.’ Isn’t this indeed what discrimination is, corralling away rights that should be available to all human beings, making them unavailable to some merely because of sexual preference. No amount of episcopal rationalisation changes the innate injustice of such a stand.
The section then goes on to imagine a number of supposed threats to traditional marriage resulting from same sex marriage :
• Legitimising ‘that there is nothing distinctive about a man and a woman, a father or a mother.’ It is unclear how same sex marriage would affect these innate distinctions.
• ‘To ignore the particular values that real (!) marriage serves.’ Surely heterosexual marriages are strong enough to stand up for themselves.
• Importance of a mother and father
Advocates of same sex marriage have never denigrated the importance of a mother and father. The reality is that the traditional nature of marriage has been changing for years and it is to the credit of many families, who may lack one or the other, that they function so well. And surely we should not forget that a number of mother/father families are in fact dysfunctional . Have the bishops conveniently forgotten that domestic violence is now one of our most pressing problems in Australia?
• Same sex marriage will destabilise marriage further.
I would argue that it is rather the proliferation of child abuse and domestic violence is a major destabiliser of families
• Would ‘change retrospectively the basis upon which all existing married couples got married’
Does this imply for example that if I married my partner it would somehow change the credibility of my own parents’ marriage ( and of many like them)? Such an argument is ridiculous and trivialises the whole issue.

 

  • Emotional tie v Comprehensive one flesh union
    This section seems to imply that same sex marriage relationships can only be emotional, unlike heterosexual marriage which also demands a ‘bodily and spiritual union.’
    I recall when I studied theology more than forty years ago that the main purpose of marriage was the procreation of children and only secondary was the love between the partners. Obviously the church has rethought this position in the intervening years. Bodily and spiritual union is now regarded as just as crucial, possibly to accommodate childless or aged marriage unions.
    Same sex unions can be emotional, spiritual and ‘bodily’ too. Scientific advances mean that same sex couples can also generate children . It is patronising and ignorant to argue that same sex couples can only achieve ‘emotional’ union. Just good friends.

 

  • The importance of marriage and family

Advocates of same sex marriage are not interested in badmouthing the value of a good functioning traditional marriage. Let’s be honest. There is a Catholic ideal for marriage but many marriages are in fact disfunctional.
The most recent national figures indicate that during 2012-13, there were 184,216 Australian children suspected of being harmed or at risk of harm from abuse and/or neglect within the family. This resulted in 272,980 notifications being issued by state and territory authorities (a rate of 35.5 notifications per 1,000 Australian children). The total number of notifications represents an increase of 7.9% from the 252,962 reports made in the previous year. It’s a bit rich for either churches or conservative family organisations to take the high moral ground over the safety of children given these alarming statistics. Traditional married families are unfortunately no safeguard against the abuse of children.

 

  • The importance of mothers and fathers

This section argues for the protection of children and that the best way to achieve this lies with having a parent of both sexes. It fails to face the reality of modern, ‘blended’ families and presumes that this Catholic model is without dispute the best for children. A recent University of Melbourne study revealed that children raised by same-sex partners scored an average of 6 per cent higher than the general population on measures of general health and family cohesion.
Furthermore I think it is hypocrisy of the highest order for bishops to talk about the ‘vulnerability’ of young people in this section in the face of continuing revelations from the Child Abuse Royal Commission. Reports currently issuing from the Royal Commission indicate that a number of bishops remained silent over child abuse and preferred to save the reputation of the church rather than the safety of children in their care. When it comes to advice on protecting children I believe the bishops have lost the high moral ground and should retreat into silence and wear metaphorical sackcloth and ashes for a few centuries.

 

  • Consequences of redefining marriage

This section worries that: ‘Even if certain exemptions were allowed at first for ministers of religion and places of worship, freedom of conscience, belief and worship will be curtailed in important ways’ and goes on to posit a number of alarmist examples of churches having their freedoms lessened.
Paul Kelly recently in The Australian argued that same sex marriage is a threat to the very freedom of religion. When huge powerful institutions with money and influence (and lawyers) start screaming about their freedom, I have little sympathy. The Catholic Church has had enormous power and influence for generations and perhaps this is part of their problem. Clerical power and influence have played a crucial role in the cover-up of child abuse in church institutions. The church would be more sympathetically viewed if it argued for the rights of minority groups rather than its own right to untrammeled power and influence. Even Joe Hockey thought the Age of Entitlement was over.
To me Don’t mess with Marriage reads like a last-ditch attempt by the church to hold onto the moral high ground, ignoring our changed social environment. Enforcing laws, often without mercy, has done the church no good in the past. The movement toward same sex marriage is an attempt to deliver equal rights for all and an opportunity for the church to learn a lesson that love, not law is paramount.
P.S.

When I send this response directly to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference they may ask what my credentials are for having strong opinions on this topic. For thirty five years I was a member of the Catholic church, a practising priest for ten of those years. And for thirty-five years I have been an ‘out’ gay man and in one relationship for thirty of those years.