Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Eve Tushnet

Home
Catholic
Religious Music & Entertainment
Four Kinds of Argument on “True Fulfillment” for Gay Christians

Four Kinds of Argument on “True Fulfillment” for Gay Christians

Last updated on: April 2, 2016 at 10:58 am by Eve Tushnet

Four Kinds of Argument on “True Fulfillment” for Gay Christians 2016-04-02T10:58:42-04:00 Eve Tushnet

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Tim Otto (I reviewed his book here) asks a question about those of us who call for a revival of devoted, intimate same-sex love within the historic Christian sexual ethic:

[I]f Wesley is encouraging people of the same sex to “go all the way” in spiritual, emotional, and intellectual ways, why not “go all the way” with the body as well?…

I’m curious as to how Wesley would respond to concerns that by singling out physical intimacy as wrong, his proposal is dualist or even gnostic.

(from here, though I got it via Wesley Hill’s response)

This is a question I think about a lot, as it happens, so let me ramble through a few different ways of approaching it.

The first way is a sort of standard debate model: What are the consequences of this worldview? What are its unstated assumptions?

So like, I am extremely sympathetic to the anti-gnostic element of Otto’s thinking. Part of the story of how I became Catholic was realizing that my stereotypes of Catholicism as a life-hating, sex-hating, body-hating, anti-sensual religion was basically entirely front-to-back wrong. The God I came to know was a Creator God, Who creates and sustains the physical world through His love, for (among other things) His pleasure and our joy. Given that, it seems intuitive that the highest and deepest forms of human communion would require physical union, and the most obvious image of physical union is good old sex.

But if we accept (our culture’s underlying assumption) that sexual union is the highest form of communion between humans, the Christian practice of monogamy gets kind of weird, no? It starts to look like you shouldn’t love anyone “as much as” you love your spouse, rather than maybe saying there are many kinds of love that reach infinitude in different ways. A whole lot of women have experiences of friendship that are at least as intimate and rich as their love for their husbands, and this isn’t (or isn’t always) because their marriages are lacking anything. Historically men have expressed the same feelings, though nowadays straight men in our culture have a super hard time articulating a longing for same-sex love.

Does monogamy make friendship inherently gnostic? Or inherently a lesser love? I don’t think either of these positions square well with the Gospels and with the Christian history of friendship.

Moreover, the idea that celibate love can’t reach the heights of sexual love requires us to ignore or denigrate the love found in the monastery. Monks and nuns give their love in a startlingly unreserved and abandoned way to God; they also form communities of love (I mean, when monasticism is working this is what they do) in which your brothers or sisters are as inescapable, as infuriating, as beloved and as sanctifying as a spouse.

So I believe all that stuff and I think it’s an important corrective to an ahistoric (lol code for “Protestant,” sorry guys I gotta do me) cultural narrative. It is also not the reason I believe what I do.

So the second way of thinking I’d like to try here is thinking with the Church. My beliefs about specific issues of sexual ethics flow from my love of and relationship with Christ’s Bride, the Church. She has asked certain things of me and I will do what I can to fulfill my promises to Her–or like, when I don’t do what I can, at least I won’t try to justify myself!

My body is a gift from God; and so is my sexual ethic. There are certain ways we as Catholic Christians have been given, to make our bodies altars; we have not been given others.

This is a way of “living as church” which I know not all branches of Christianity focus on (or require? what I know about what Protestant churches require could fit comfortably in a thimble). But I want to note my actual commitments, which are not to specific theological arguments I make and understand but to Christ’s Church, out of love and gratitude.

Which brings me to my third point, which I guess I will call a pastoral approach, or better, an argument about trust: about witness and counterwitness. In comments on Wes’s post, Kathy says–I mean she says a lot of important stuff, most of which I disagree with, but she says this one thing I want to flag:

It takes a leap of faith to even believe God accepts me with my authentic desires let alone bless me either in a marriage or with celibacy because many of the churches I tried to participate in did not accept me no matter what I did. The only church I was fully welcomed in was an affirming church and that says volumes.

It really does say volumes, doesn’t it? I mean that hasn’t been my experience. I have been ridiculously lucky. But I have met so many people whose experiences have looked more like Kathy’s than like mine; I go to the cathedral church in what used to be DC’s gay ghetto, I’ve found it easy to get competent and compassionate spiritual direction, I basically lead the world’s weirdest gay Christian life. And I am 100% sure that this statistically-improbable good fortune is part of why I can believe Catholic teaching. How can you love a church where nobody seems to love you? Why would you trust that church’s claims that they can help you surrender your life to the God Who is Love?

Pretty girls are the best theology. But the second-best theology is humble love for neighbor and stranger.

And the fourth approach is to try to ask the questions Tim Otto might ask if he believed what I believe. How do his concerns look when expressed in my worldview? How do celibate people love others with our bodies?

And there are two kinds of answers, which seem to conflict but I think don’t really. I’m not even sure this rises to the level of paradox; it’s more just, both of these things are true. First, we love others with our bodies when we serve them. Jesus washing feet is loving others with His Body. The basic, boring acts of caregiving take on poetic richness when they are done with love. They are images of intensely physical love: the love that holds, that helps to stand, that kneels to clean, that strains to lift.

And second, the bodies of celibate people are reserved, in a way, for God alone. The “theology of the body” is most obviously a theology of sex, not a theology of work or illness or food (although it can flow into all these areas). Is that a marker of contemporary obsessions, or is there wisdom there? Maybe both! Maybe there is beauty to be found in exploring the way in which celibacy makes our bodies gifts only to God.

I was trying to find this quotation which really stuck with me: “Peter was exposed to action; John was reserved for love.” And of course it turns out that it’s (slightly paraphrased) from Spiritual Friendship, because I only really know one thing. But yes: There’s a parallel here, where marriage exposes the spouses to certain kinds of action–the breaking open of the woman’s body, the terror of “having your heart walking around outside your body,” the economic cares and daily tasks and menial joys, and of course the action and disappointments and urgency of sex itself. Celibates are set aside for a more internal love, a secluded garden where we meet God.

Gay Catholic Whatnot

Mackerel-Snapping

Gay Catholic Whatnot

His banner over me was love

in the flesh

mackerel-snapping

the fruit of service is peace

Tim Otto

vocation

Previous Post

April 1, 2016

A Principal, A Senator, And Two Stories of Second Chances

Next Post

April 5, 2016 "Every Last One Was a Mother to Me": Four DC Women Live a Century of Friendship

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Art Best-Of Gay Catholic Whatnot Mackerel-Snapping self-obsessed Too much is never enough Uncategorized

Select a Month November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 August 2022 July 2022 May 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 November 2002 October 2002 September 2002 August 2002 July 2002 June 2002 May 2002 April 2002 March 2002 February 2002 January 2002

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

I am patient and kind. I do not envy or boast. I never fail and endure all things. What am I?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Love Grace Hope Faith