Same-attractive Dyadinal Solemn Relationships
An Exploring Notions of Love and Commitment
I. Introduction: Same-sexuality and Sin
II. The Three Loves
III. Same-attractive Solemn Relationships
IV. Same-attractive Dyadinal Solemn Relationships
V. Biblical Models for same-attractive Dyadinal Solemn Relationships
VI. Conclusion: The Love of Jesus as all Encompassing
Introduction: Same-sexuality and Sin
It is an important ministry in the Catholic Church to seek the edification of all people, especially the outcast and downtrodden. The church must constantly take pains to make sure it is true to its mission with regards to this and is ever introspectively updating its stance to include ways to aid the outcast in the quest for God just as Jesus did. In recent times the church has better elaborated on its view of same-seuxuality as action and disposition and has greatly increased its use of inclusive language regarding same-sexual people. But there is still a great lack regarding awareness of what options such people have to share supreme love with their fellow human beings. What follows will be an attempt to offer some models, paths and methodologies for same-attractive people to take in the Catholic church and ways the church can offer true spiritual edification to same-attractive people.
In order to begin we must discuss the language that will be used as a matter of course in this paper. The language of sexuality, sexual identity, sexually attractive relationships, and sexual ontology is undergoing a hyper-dynamic and tumultuous growth process. Gone are the days when I could write this paper and assume a simple gay/straight or homo/hetero dichotomy. Also, at least for the time being, gone is any fundamental set of agreed upon terms that are clear and unbiased. When I started writing this paper the first word in the title was “homoattractive” and I used that prefix steadfastly throughout the paper. Being theologically inclined I felt it added a sense of gravitas. The prefix is greek for “same” and is oft used in theological discourse, such as homoousian (concerning the substance of God) or Ecce Homo (“Behold the Man.” to denote Christ’s suffering during the passion). But in the vetting process it became clear that the term was disturbing to important target audiences and it’s very frequent use became a distraction because of the derogatory use of the term historically in popular culture. In an attempt to neutralize any offence or distraction I have changed the greek “homo” to the english “same”. A major purpose of this paper is to bring an expanded understanding of the depths of love to members of the church who are open to it and explain how that depth is operative and applicable in the church to those who are not members. It would not serve our inclusive purposes to use terms that offended half the audience. At the same time I would ask that those that may have feelings about the terms chosen (as terms) table that discussion for now and be open the cognitive as opposed to semantic flow of the paper.
The theological work to be done here must begin with a basic review of the Church’s position concerning same-attraction, and specifically same-sexual attraction and action. The first thing that needs to be pointed out is that God made everything good according to the first story of creation in Genesis. Therefore evil, as Saint Augustine argues in City of God, has no actual being, it is either a lack of goodness or a lower order of goodness than is required given a particular situation. And sin is action oriented and affected by the lack of good that should be present. The Church teaches that sexual action is oriented toward two mutually edifying purposes. Those purposes are the unity of the couple and the openness to procreation in the act. So for sexual action to be “good” it must be oriented to those two purposes and any lack there of would qualify as sinful. Since it is impossible for same-sexual action (as sex) to be open to generating life, the standard teaching in the Catholic church is that same-sexual acts are sinful. What that actually means is same-sexual acts are “not good enough”. Same-sexual action can lead to unity of the couple especially through pleasure and shared experience. But, those patterns of action are absolutely closed off to procreation. Some may say that they therefore necessitate objectification of the sexual partner and therefore do not allow for unity either, but that downplays the unitive aspect of sexuality as a separate category. The two purposes are certainly meant to be mutually edifying in catholic moral tradition. I can attest as a parent that procreation definitely intensified the union of sexual action in my particular marriage, but the fact remains, people can beget children without the unitive aspect in play, and people can come into intense union sexually without the effect or intent of procreation. It’s just that spiritually both intentions need to be there for it to be morally perfect, and for one to be lacking is “not good enough” rendering this action sinful.
All that being said, our purposes here are to explore how same-attractive relationships play out in a healthy way as a whole and not simply same-sexual attractions. One of the pressing questions a catholic may receive with regards to the view of same-sexuality is, “but why can’t the church just let people love each other? Isn’t Jesus all about love?” This is a just question, Jesus was all about love and we are all to love each other completely, so what types of same-love and same-attraction are allowed and not simply allowed, but required of a christian. It cannot be that all same-loving and same-attracting urges and actions are forbidden. This would fly in the face of basic teaching of Christianity. With regards to people who feel intense same-attraction and love that is allowed and required what avenues does the church offer a life ordered toward that good?
It is certainly the case that the church teaches that same-sexual acts are personal sin. It is a little less well known that the church holds firm its teaching that if one is born with a same-sexual disposition, this is not a personal sin, but an example of a concupiscent desire. From the church's point of view, that is not more personally sinful that anyone born with a desire to do any other sin. Every person has concupiscent dispositions which tempt them to sinful actions. The willingness to resist cooperation with such rote temptation and the desire to act in accordance with the good desires one has is the basic practice of morality regardless of the specific temptation any person may have. The good desires someone may have also need attention. Creation is good, thus good desires are, ontologically, more “real” to who a person is supposed to be. Concupiscent desires are a “distortion” left by some lack to be made up in redemption. This is why it is preferable here to discuss same-attractive desires as opposed to same-sexual. To define a person as same-sexual defines that person completely by their sexual desires and action. This is particularly connotatively true because it is an unaccepted desire and/or action in our culture. To call someone heterosexual or “straight” almost exclusively happens in the context of “homosexuality” and therefore brings with it a sweeping assumption of a full being with an infinite variety of facets to their life. But generally “homosexuality” is regarded in and of itself and therefore often in the context of such a definitive conversation it becomes the person discussed, they are simply a sexual creature and all other actions are calculated and calibrated by their sexual action and desire. This is a foolish way to regard people and is certainly not the way Christ would regard anyone. Even when the woman was taken in adultery Jesus did not simply regard her desire or action as a sexual creature. He regarded her as a fundamentally good creature of God ripe for redemption.
The Three Loves
To explore the goodness of same-attractive love one need go no further than the three classic understandings of love: eros, philia, and agape. The first of the three loves is eros or erotic love. Erotic love is the desire that draws you to another. This type of love is desire based, emotive, and immediately self presenting. There is no willful or cognitive cooperation necessary for erotic love, it simply abides in a person as a result of external stimulus. The only participation necessary for an individual is to allow erotic love to abide. In most circles of Christianity erotic love gets a bad rap. Since it is emotion based it is often confused with its concupiscent distortion, lust. This is an easy mistake because the traditional definition of concupiscence is when passions and appetites rule over reason and eros seems to fit the bill. This rhetorical maneuver would seem to put any good that could come of eros to rest, except for the fact that there are reasonable times to rely on passions and appetites. They serve a function in the human person and have a job to do.
Eros and lust are not the same thing. Eros is a variety of love and therefore good. There are a great variety of ways that is is necessary and good in a healthy sexual life and an even greater variety of ways that it is good in general human relationships. Most importantly there are important and extremely effective ways that one utilizes eros in their relationship with God. If one wants a healthy understanding of Eros, one need look no further than mystical theology. Mystical love of God seeks to shed will and cognition and allow for the action of God. One disavows any knowledge of God and relies solely on their desire for God. In that desire they wait for God to come to them. The mystical love of contemplative and monastics such as John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, Teresa of Avila, etc. is erotic love of God. Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite believed the mystical (erotic) path to God to be superior to the rational path of understanding.
This leads us to homoerotic love; (again I will use the prefix “homo” to preserve grecian continuity and hope that it does not come off as derogatory) not to be confused with same-sexual desire a concupiscent subset of homoerotic urges. There are many good ways to be emotionally draw by desire to people of the same sex. They are edifying and certainly can lead to deep loving bonds. For example consider the following scenario from Matthew Chapter 4,
As [Jesus] was walking by the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon who is called Peter, and his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea; they were fishermen. He said to them, “Come after me, and I will make you fishers of men.” At once they left their nets and followed him. He walked along from there and saw two other brothers, James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John. They were in a boat, with their father Zebedee, mending their nets. He called them, and immediately they left their boat and their father and followed him.
This paper will go on to discuss the nature of filial and agapic love, but for now it is suffice to say that these followers of Jesus demonstrate no evidence of either of these varieties of love. Something about Jesus affects them in a way that the radically change their lives in order to be with him. No rational or goal oriented calculation is demonstrated in the text. It is some sort of draw to be with Jesus that appeals to some basic desire of theirs. This story can be perfectly likened to the call of Abraham by God to leave his home in Ur. There is no reason given, it is simply the desire to be with God. In this case the disciples feel an emotive based desire to be with this man that is so strong is enkindles the desire to leave everything they find comfortable to be with him. It may be uncomfortable for some to describe the love demonstrated in the call of the first disciples as homoerotic, but understanding properly what homoerotic love is, and the good that can clearly come from it given this story, and it would be hard to describe it as otherwise. To be able to know the true goodness of homoerotic love as a demonstration of God’s plan and providence is a necessary first step in walking toward absolute inclusivity of same-attractive people in the Catholic church.
The next two types of love are less controversial when applied to same-attractive relationships, but a broad picture is required to understand the beauty of such love and the gift that it brings to the Church so they bear going over. The first of these is philia or filial love. Filial love is the love of kinship or love of comrades set to a common task. Filial love takes a little more investment than erotic love. For example, if you have commonalities with someone, you belong to a group together or are working on a shared goal together, there exists a self evident attraction and comfort that is the beginning of filial love. But the deeper relationship formed between to people who share filial love is to be maintained then there must be a conscious effort to maintain the relationships and cultivate shared values. Unlike Eros, which comes and goes by desire and is self presenting, philia is cognitively recognized first, then felt, then cooperated with. If one did not know that the person standing across from them was their long lost child, or a fellow trade unionist, it is unlikely that philia would be present until that knowledge was acquired. Homofilial love is the least controversial same-attractive realtionship. But such types of love are not usually given the greek prefix “homo”. Similarly people don’t talk about the relationship of two men who work together in terms of man to man or woman to woman “love”. Though that is what it properly is.
The same is true for homoagapic loving relationship. Any christian knows that agapic love is the self emptying variety of love. Given our concupiscent dispositions, love that seeks the good of the other above the self is natural to humans as we were built by God, but the effect of original Sin does not allow for it to be immediately present in us. Thus, agapic love takes absolute investment by the practitioner. It is extremely unlikely that one would accidentally, unwittingly or spontaneously practice agapic love. Concupiscence has shaped humans to be so self centered that absolutely other centered love takes cognitive investment, perfect conscious awareness and willful investment in its practice. This type of love is traditionally called the highest order of love and is the word the New Testament uses for love the vast majority of the time. This type of love proceeded from Christ to all people and, given that, it is obvious that this type of love is meant to be spread from individual Christians to all humanity regardless of their biological sex.
No Christians would doubt this, however to talk of homoagapic love would set many at ill ease. To talk of how Jesus loves everyone is easy, to talk of how he loved “mankind” is easy, to talk of how he loved individual men becomes more rare. And when this type of talk does happen focus on Jesus’ divinity immediately moves to the forefront of the assumptions in the conversation. To ponder how Jesus as a living and true human man loved other men in first century palestine is off putting. Not the least because it may assume that I as a man may need to love other men, love them not in an unattainable theoretical “divine” way, but actually love people of the same sex as a matter of course. The only example of pre-lapsarian love that we have takes place between divinity and humans and between a man and a woman because only one of each existed before concupiscence entered the drama of humanity. With the coming of Jesus and the redemption of humanity something new is demonstrated, same-loving relationships in their full, good and beautiful form. But, Christianity is fearful of recognising that goodness and beauty. One gets a sense of this in the Catechism article 2359 where it says same-sexual persons must seek chastity, “By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” This paper completely agrees with everything in this statement, especially the gradual nature of change. The connotative sticking point is the “disinterested friendship”. Jesus is not a disinterested friend, unless one is speaking specifically about sexual action and attraction.
The stigma that society has acquired toward any type of love between two people of the same sex comes because of hyperfocus on the illicit nature of same-sexual actions in Christianity and the result has been devastating. Such stigma is easily applied to this passage from the catechism. Even if same-sexual action has been engaged in by a person, a truly christian disposition is compassion, acceptance, edification, as it should be toward any sin. These are the tools that Jesus used. Instead when same-sexuality is pointed out, the response is taboo, harsh judgment, moral horror, superiority more akin to the pharisees of the gospels. This unhealthy moral attitude is infectious and spreads from an extremely particular physical expression of love, defined as “disordered”, or as we define it “not quite good enough”, beyond action to sexual dispositions defined in Catholic tradition as not personally sinful, but treated as such. Such judgment of people possessed of a same-sexual attractive disposition is sinful itself, and that sin needs to be more widely acknowledged. Worse yet, the illicit judgment by the self righteous Christian, under the effects of concupiscence, spreads from focus on concupiscent same-sexual desire, to harsh judgment directed toward all healthy and good forms of homoerotic relationships. So much so that the word homoerotic is immediately identified as an evil in and of itself. This is partly do to a lack of understanding of the goodness of erotic love in the Christian tradition in general coupled with a bias against same-attractive relationships as a whole. Finally this judgment spreads to a fear of even acknowledging the obviously moral and edifying nature of same-attractive love expressed in agape and philia. In the end such a passage from the catechism speaking about very specific actions and orientations is assumed to cover all of these and is uncharitably used to great evil.
This progression is a perfect example of how the demonic element of sin can take an entire network of goodness and exploit the judgmental nature of humankind to spread evil and hate destroying the good creation of God. For the reader will remember that all is good, and any power of evil can create nothing itself, only turn things that are good to a distortion in order to create evil and sin. To this effect society has become completely disordered by an overzealous judgment concerning a small sinful act and that has lead to a horrific expansion to evil concupiscence and social sin in the structures that judge and ostricize same-attractive people. These active instances of original sin have facilitated the practice of personal sin as people discriminate and judge others in inappropriate ways. And the most diabolic part is that far more often than not they are directing this ire toward people participating in the highest goods of human love by any standard Christian definition, even if they are same sex relationships.
Same-attractive Solemn Relationships
So how can the Catholic Church appropriately combat this discordant state of affairs? Is there a place for same-attractive relationships to play out in healthy ways and develop the authentic deep Christian love that they are naturally oriented toward in almost every instance? The quick response to these questions is, why not let same-sexuals get married? The problem with affirming this in the catholic church comes down to a matter of the ancient definition of marriage. For a marriage to be validly sacramental it must be ratified and consummated. The ratification process is the wedding ceremony and all it presupposes. For our purposes here we need not go into every aspect of this and will instead direct our attention to the necessity of consummation. For a sacramental marriage to be valid this is a consummation must take place. The definition in the Catholic tradition is long standing and technical, for consummation to take place a male must “finish the job” in the proper location without barrier. This must happen at least one time and once it happens assuming proper ratification, a couple is sacramentally bound for the rest of their lives.
The problem regarding same-attractive sacramental marriage is that a same sexed dyad is not equipped to consummate. Ratification can take place. The couple can stand before two witnesses and a priest and offer vows with all the proper intentions, but consummation cannot happen. And in the Catholic church if it does not happen then the sacrament has not happened (nullity). So why not change the definition of consummation? Well, a problem here is that this definition is not a reaction to the modern same-sexual rights “agenda”. It has been applicable in the catholic church from its inception and from before. Actually it can be found even as early as Jacob and his wife Leah. Once the consummation took place Jacob was stuck with her and resorted to polygamy to marry his chosen bride. Of course from this biblical example the free will of ratification is completely absent leading the modern reader to balk. Regardless, the sexual act as being between a man and a woman in a married context has been part of Judeo-Christian tradition for far longer than our modern cultural concerns. Even in other cultures where same-sexuality was more acceptable, marriage was for men and woman, same-sexual relationships were present outside that context as an addendum or augmentation to the love life of it’s practitioners, as we will discuss later. This would be the case because unlike our hyper focus on the unity expressed in sex and marriage, ancient cultures hyper focused on the procreative end at the expense of the union. This is understandable given the much more tentative nature of population in ancient cultures.
The fact that sacramental marriage is not an option seems to leave us with no avenues for those who are drawn to expressing love through same-tractive means. But let’s take pause and ask two simple questions. 1) Could the Catholic Church accept a situation where people of the same biological sex vow themselves to each other in a life binding way in order to build loving relationships and edify each other in Christ? 2) Could those people raise children together? It seems the answer must be no because what is being described here is no other that the bond of marriage and we have already established that this is impossible in the church given the understanding of a sacramental marriage. It is the position of this paper that not only are the answers to these questions both yes, but that there are already forms and structures for this available in the Catholic church today, and have been for over a millennium. The rest of this paper will seek to generally explore those forms and institutions and offer new theoretical forms and institutions based on the same guiding theological and philosophical foundations and based on biblical precedence.
Could the Catholic Church accept a situation where people of the same biological sex vow themselves to each other in a life binding way in order to build loving relationships and edify each other in Christ? Could those people raise children together? The answer to both of these questions is absolutely yes. What is being described here is a religious order. The vow here is solemn and not sacral, but it is definitely life binding. The vow lasts until the participant's death. There abides in the church now large amounts of same sex life vowed relationships whose entire purpose is to build love between these same sexed people in all of the healthy ways we have described. The reader’s response may be, “that’s not the same thing, when you are in an order you are ‘married to God.” A close inspection of the vows of a religious order may be required. When you take the vows of an order you are not particularly binding yourself to God, your participation in the sacraments of initiation did that. You are binding yourself to the order. The vow of obedience you take is a vow to the superior of the order not to God. Why would any Christian ever need to take a vow of obedience to God? Isn’t your attempted obedience assumed given your baptismal vow? You vow yourself to a same sex community to learn love within that community, just as in marriage you vow yourself to a much smaller community of two.
And yes, those same-oriented communities can raise children. It is the charism of many orders to run schools and orphanages. If the reader’s response is, “That’s not raising children! Not like a real parent!” I would ask, is a married couple who happens to be infertile and adopts children by legal means from the state not the child’s parent? Consecrated people who run orphanages are those children’s parents, they raise them as their own.
So if a same sex couple wanted to vow a life fidelity to each other even now in the Catholic Church there are eager, vibrant, and accepting same-oriented institutions waiting for the reception of their vows. The order they pick is the agent or broker of their bound life. They could easily enter together and through their life vow develop erotic, filial and agapic love in all the ways discussed above and there is absolutely nothing wrong with this. In fact it is exactly what an order is for. This is also the case for a same-attractively disposed person who does not have a partner. An order is a place to grow such loving relationships and maybe even find a special person to practice deep love with for the rest of their life. In my opinion, the church should have absolutely zero problem with this, and short any sexual action on their part I think it has been demonstrated here that not only would they have done nothing wrong, they would have done great good and sought God by as valid and fulfilling a path as a married couple.
Same-attractive Dyadinal Solemn Relationships
Orders are well and good but what about a same-attractive dyadinal relationship in the Catholic Church? Not everyone is suited to nor called to consecrated life. Could same-attractive people take non-sacral but solemn vows forming by such a binding consecrated dyadinal relationship in the catholic church? Most may blanch at such a suggestion, but why? Likely the answer would come in some form of, “Wouldn’t that be scandalous?” The answer is, “Maybe, but so what?” Christian love is a scandalous affair. One need only reflect on the nature of Jesus’ ministry to be recalibrated to a proper understanding of what true love is. He kept the company with a great variety of peoples in his time whom society considered marginal and his acceptance of them was obviously quite scandalous. Tax collectors and prostitutes were the people who he served out of love and brought the love of God to. Perhaps one has the image that these relationships were peripheral, that Jesus popped into town and told them God loved them gave them a quick, let’s say “disinterested,” blessing and went on his way forming no real loving bond with these people. “It was more like pity, you know.” No. It was not. That is not the Jesus that even a culturally conservative Christian tradition teaches. And even if some stories were particular to a town that an itinerant messiah visited it is important to remember that Jesus kept the company of women in his inner circle. That these women supported him and his disciples out of their means and that these scandalous relationships were not only deep and personal, but lasting. Jesus was not married to these women, but love transcends convention.
Some may give Jesus special dispensation to transcend convention, but assume that such a dispensation does not spread to us. The feeling is Jesus is a special case, but for the average person, love should be expressed through normal social convention. I would say be careful here. Remember, we are called to be Christ, that is the goal, and if a response to that call is lacking, well that’s “not good enough”. Remember that St. Paul’s strong position is that love trumps the law. In Galatians chapter 15 he is quite clear on this point.
“For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you go on biting and devouring one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another. . . if you are guided by the Spirit, you are not under the law . . . the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law.”
To do things simply to cause scandal is never advisable. To not act out of love out or fear of scandal is a sever lack of good, the very definition of evil offered at the beginning of this paper, and a sin of the same variety as same-sexual action; “not good enough”.
This brings us to a more pointed criticism of same-attractive dyadinal solemn relationships. What about the near occasion of sin? What about the fact that to willingly and knowingly put yourself into a situation where you will be severely tempted to do illicit action that causes damaging sin is dangerous? Or that to knowingly and willingly put yourself in that situation where you are certain to fail could be a sin in and of itself?
For consecrated dyads to be available in the Catholic church there would need to be a supposition that those people making this kind of vow would have the intention of not engaging in sexual acts (even if they did have same-sexual erotic feelings for eachother). This in and of itself would be enraging to the progressive minded, but it keeps with the teaching of the church.
That being said, a same-attractive dyadinal solemn relationship would be a vocation option if it were a reality, and so it may not hurt to measure the rigorousness of our attitudes toward such a path against the rigor with which we judge the vocations already in existence. We have already discussed the role that consecrated life may play in same-attractive relationships as an existing institution. Therefore the most obvious vocational path to turn to next would be the sacrament of matrimony. Do we hold such strict rigor concerning the sacramental relationships formed in a marriage bond? Certainly the ideals are as high here. With regard to sexual acts, the teaching is that the sexual life of the married couple should be unitive and open to creation. The general attitude of the magisterium is that this should be the case in every instance of sexual activity as a testament to the complete beauty of the sacramental bond and to divine love. And certainly one often comes across clerics and consecrated who are extremely negative with regards to practice of the sacral rites of marriage (i.e. sex). Over focus on the high ideal of marital sex seems to make every practical act of sexuality seem laden with sin and in turn seems to leave celibacy as the only virtuous choice.
Contrary to this, anyone who briefly reflects on marriage as a sacrament knows that sacraments are for the broken and meant to offer healing. Marriage is a vocational sacrament and much like the community of consecrated life it is meant to be a safe place where one can grow spiritually into their full potential. Growth is assumed, therefore an opening lack of development from the outset is also assumed. So, for example, one does not enter an order being able to be perfectly disciplined toward the superior and the rule. One does not enter an order being able to completely and consciously invest oneself in the Divine Office every time in perfect harmony with one’s sisters or brothers. Orders allow one to grow into that life and become the best consecrated one can be over time.
The same is true in the marital relationship and more particularly here the same is true for the sacral rites of the marital relationship. A married person must grow into a developed sense of sacral sex. This must be allowed for especially given the overwhelming cultural influence to the contrary. The complaining cleric or consecrated is right, when one comes into marriage the sexual desire acted upon in the couple's sexual lives together is most likely filled with concupiscent distortions and shortcomings of all varieties. Examples of such would be objectification of the partner, closed attitude toward procreation (“at least for now”), dominating disposition and behavior, etc. It would be hard for anyone who grew up in the modern media influenced society to escape these desires and urges. And it would be impossible for a person so influenced to absolutely prescind the effects of that influence every time they have sex and completely invest in their sacral rite as a married person. Therefore there is a dispensation concerning the near occasion of sin because the assumption is that marriage and the grace involved in the sacramental vocation allows for the person to grow throughout their married life and advance in their practices, just like the novice in an order.
No one would ever suggest that someone should not join an order because they weren’t perfectly in sync with what consecrated life aspires to. Such a lack is a lack of the good that should be there (evil), and actions influenced by that are by default sin. But once again there is a dispensation of concern for the near occasion of sin. There is an allowance of a progression and development toward the good and this dispensation and allowance is what affords anyone to join an order. The same would be true for a priest.
Any priest who may deride a lack of the ideal in a spousal sexual relationship may need to look for a beam in their own eye. Their high sacral right is the mass, the font of all sacraments. In order to perform their sacral right they should also be fully cognitively and emotively invested in the moment of epiclesis and with full purpose and humility submit to their role as a simple vessel of Christ's grace. We all know the sacramental grace flows regardless of their disposition, just as often life flows from sexual activity regardless of the couple intention, but how often, as a fallen human being, can a priest be able to be so fully and ideally present. There is a serious lack of goodness in the action here and therefore a serious sin. No one would say that a person should be able to perform mass with perfect attention and awareness every time before they are ordained to avoid the near occasions of sin. Such a stance would lead to no priests. Once again there is a dispensation of concern for the near occasion of sin in light of the great good afforded the church and the person through the grace of ordination. But that good is developmental concerning the person ordained and that development is certainly a lifetime affair.
And lastly there is certainly a dispensation of the concern for near occasion of sin for the married people. If one were to assert that the near occasion of sin concerning sexual concupiscence and sexual action should prevent someone from marrying then there would be no marriage. I say this because just like for the priest and the consecrated discussed above, this is the worst variety of near occasion, a situation where failure concerning the temptation is a given. Even here it is obviously better for people to marry and grow together in their spirituality. When ratification of a sacramental marriage happens the couple needs to have the proper intention and knowledge of what they are freely getting into when the vows are exchanged. That is all that is asked. If ratification and consummation, which is only a physical action no intention required here, properly takes place a marriage is indissoluble. That indissolubility is not affected by change in intention after the valid marriage. It is not affected by sins which cooperate with concupiscent desires concerning sexuality. Nothing can break the bond, which shows an assumption that such desires and disordered dispositions would have personally sinful effects in the married life of the couple, but the bond remains and sin cannot destroy it. If the couple is struggling, even against all odds, then the Christian presumption is that ultimately good will prevail. These types of sin are “not good enough,” but there is goodness. The lack here is indicative of a great goodness that could be even better.
Let’s turn the same attitude offered priests, consecrated, and married people toward same-attractive people. Why is it so hard to conceive of a same-attractive dyadnal solemn vow that binds people together in a life of edifying mutual life and mutual growth in the life of christ. It would need to be a solemn vow and the assumption is that there would be an intention toward chastity, but all other vowed vocations in the Catholic Church allow for a dispensation of the concern for the near occasion of sin. In such a relationship, any failing toward the proper end would simply be what it is for priest, consecrated or married, a growth experience. The illicit sex of such a couple could be unitive. Maybe not as “perfectly unitive” as the sex in a perfectly united, perfectly open to life same sex couple, but does that couple exist beyond the ideal? If they do, is every single one of their sexual actions this intense? This couple would be an extreme rarity. The Church could easily allow for a same-attractive couple to build their good and healthy erotic, filial and agapic love into a great good for themselves and the Church through such a dyadinal solemn vowed relationship. If the couple lived a long life together, one could easily see their sexual lives tempering into what was licit according to church teaching. If that tempering did not happen it would be no different than most if not all married couples sexual lives by the end, most if not all participants in the priesthood or consecrated life lives in the end. Most of us don’t reach ultimate perfection before the end, complete redemption comes with glorification. Is this usually that big of a deal? It’s certainly not for all other vowed lifestyles in the Church. The lack of the ideal good is a sinful situation, but the good of the life through the institution mitigates the damage of the sin. Life is not the ideal, the church recognizes this for all other vowed lifestyles because God recognizes this. God recognizes that growth is the human condition. Scriptures teaches us through Noah that life itself is a near occasion of sin, but that doesn’t mean that life should be stamped out. God feels humanity is worth having around despite the self danger. Could same-attractive dyadnal solemn vows be worth having around?
Lastly, even in the failure of the ideal, what is the effect? Recall the sin of same-sexual acts is a sin of not reaching the ideal, of “not being good enough”. When respect for human life that should be there is absent, that is not good enough and the result is murder. This is a grave matter. When sexual acts without the possibility of procreation happen the result is a “waste of procreative ability” and a thwarting of God’s possible plan. It is obvious in the Bible from the promise of Abraham to the Annunciation that God’s life giving ability is extremely important and to be taken seriously. But in this act there is a strong possibility of the goodness of unity of the couple. Take that along with the fact that with the advent of Christianity, we now have solemn same-oriented communities that are in no way intending to be fecund. When discussing consecrated congregations it was noted that such relationships are vowed to the order, and many such congregations raise children. It is not a secret that sometimes in those relationships sexual concupiscence and sexual sin slip in between the members. But oddly the express result of these sexual actions is the same as if they had kept to chastity according to their station in life, that is, no procreation. Either way the sperm or egg perish having never actualized their potential as developed human beings and nothing in the situation is different with the exception of possibly adding the goodness of unity of the sexual actors. So even though it is not the ideal and therefore sinful in that it is not good enough, the type of sin and actual effect seems almost too negligible to stress over. Wouldn’t this be true in consecrated dyads as well? same-oriented congregations are an avenue for same-attractive as well as other-attractive people to express same-oriented loving relationships. Other-attractive people have a sacramental avenue for building upon their herertoerotic love and expressing it sacramentally through sexual action. Same-attractive people should be afforded dyadinal solemn relationships as well, and, if secular law allows I see no reason they could not also raise children to be good christians just as larger consecrated same-oriented communities do in institutions such as orphanages.
Biblical Models for same-attractive Dyadinal Solemn Relationships
The only concern left to be addressed is the testimony of scripture concerning same-sexuality. There are certainly levitical laws concerning male same-sexual action and St. Paul does have occasional concern regarding “sexually illicit actions” though what these are is usually vague and levitical laws are obviously not universally binding on Christians. So that leaves us with the strongest scriptural evidence concerning the proper dyadinal relationship between humans, Adam and Eve or the First Parents. Here we have a perfect instance of binary relationship, and the first parents are often properly extolled as the first marriage. That humans were constructed such seems strong evidence that same-attractive dyadnal structures may need to be eschewed. A problem here is that this would also preclude sexless same-oriented communities such as all varieties of consecrated life as well and these are certainly licit and promoted in the Catholic Church. There are actually no such communities in the Bible at all. The only possible exception to this would be the twelve apostles themselves, but it is quite clear that Peter was married, so however the apostles’ relationship was ordered it was not the same as later same-oriented consecrated structures. So should we jettison all consecrated congregations? Certainly not.
The book of Genesis sets up an obvious pattern of development with regards to post lapsarian humanity that allows for practices and structures that would never have been needed or even been considered good in paradise. A few examples will be offered here to illuminate the point. The first such practice is clothes. Adam and eve were naked in the garden but when they sinned they felt shame and made clothes out of fig leaves. An interesting and often unnoticed point is that when they are ejected from the Garden God himself makes them clothes even though in the garden this would have been an unnecessary practice. When Noah commits the second Fall in Genesis Chapter 9 by getting drunk in his tent he lays naked without shame and this is seen as a problem, even though in the garden nudity is a perfectly fine state of affairs. The theme of clothes and nudity looms large in the book of Genesis and appears all the way through the shameful stripping of Jesus on the cross. What seems to be important for our purposes is that what was a completely unnecessary institution in the garden of paradise seems quite necessary now in our postlapsarian world. There is a small amount of evidence that some Christians preferred at least ritual nudity in order to return to the practices of paradise now that the Christ has redeemed humanity. This brief foray into Edanic practices was quickly squelched in all but the baptismal rituals in the eastern rites, where they baptised nude. This is not paradise, we have different needs and institutions here.
Another example of postlapsarian accommodation would be the eating of animals. It is sometimes forgotten that the first parents were vegetarian. It is only after the recreation of the world in Genesis chapter 8 that God gave Noah permission to eat the flesh of animals. Once again there was apparently a large contingency of Christians very early on who espoused vegetarianism because this was the practice in paradise and the Christ has redeemed humanity. The only meat that needs to be eaten now would be the paschal lamb and that is in the bread of the eucharist. St. Paul grapples with these conflicts between these Christians and the omnivores who eat meats sacrificed to pagan Gods in Romans Chapter 14. He strikes a compromise asking the omnivores not to offend the vegetarians but assuring them that as things stand they are doctrinally correct in their carnivorous habits.
Jesus gives us a last example of an institution where there was a change from paradise to postlapsarian, and also points to a time when we may all be nude vegetarians in the kingdom, it concerns the question of divorce in Matthew chapter 19. The pharisees ask him if it is lawful. His response reminds us that in paradise it was not so. When they ask why Moses allowed it he seems to say what we are discussing now. “Because of the hardness of your hearts God allowed it. But in the beginning it was not so.” The effects of original sin calls for a different way that God deals with us, but there is an ideal to return to.
Oddly though concerning our topic, same-attractive dyadinal relationships, one may wish to ask, can we return to the original marriage of Adam and Eve? Why would you need same-oriented communities, dyadic or large group, in Eden? There were only two people in paradise and they were of the opposite sex. The story of the first parents does not allow for any type of relationship but a hetero-marital relationship. But now humanity is diverse and the types of relationships necessary are equally diverse. In what way could we even return to a situation like that of paradise now that anthro-diversification is a fact of postlapsarian life? Jesus comments on this dilemma as well in Matthew chapter 22 when the Sadducees approach him concerning the liverite marriage laws and who the widow is married to in heaven. Jesus’ answer is that there is no marriage in heaven, which seems to imply an absolutely expansive love across sexual boundaries. In the Kingdom of God there is neither male nor female, which leads to a flourishing of lifestyles in ancient varieties of Christianity that seek that expansive love through same-oriented communities. The question remains, is there a biblical model for such same-oriented communities to be not only large groups but dyadinal communities? Surprisingly the answer is yes. And not only yes, but there are more examples of such same-attractive dyadinal solemn relationships in the Bible than there are of eschatological based same-oriented consecrated communities. A few examples will suffice to demonstrate that the Bible is no stranger to same-attractive dyadinal solemn relationships.
The first example would be a female same-attractive dyadinal solemn relationship, that of Ruth and Naomi. The story would be well known to the reader, how Naomi left Israel for the plateau of Moab, her husband died, her sons married moabites and then her sons died leaving her with two moabite women in her charge. Naomi decides to return home and releases the moabite woman back to their families so that they can remarry and start a new life because life for her will now be hard as she is an unattached woman, one of the most vulnerable types of person in the ancient world. Oprah leave for her family but Ruth “clings” to Naomi. The way in which she binds herself to Naomi can only be viewed as a solemn vow.
“Wherever you go I will go, wherever you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall be my people and your God, my God. Where you die I will die, and there be buried. May the Lord do thus to me, and more, if even death separates me from you!” (Ruth 1:16-17)
There can be no doubt that this is a life binding vow. Add to that the fact that the word used to describe the relationship, “cling,” is only used in one other context in the Bible , “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body.” (Gen 2:24) Ruth’s relationship is deeply binding, casting off what she was and becoming what Naomi is, much like a woman would need to do who binds herself to a man through matrimony in the ancient world. The solemn dyadinal relationship between two women demonstrated here is quite clear. There is little doubt that the scriptures approve of its structure.
Interestingly Scripture never explicitly condemns female to female sexual relationships. It may be assumed that the levitical prohibitions of “man lying with man” uses the term man to mean human, but this may not necessarily be the case. If the functional concern of the ancient world was the same as now, openness to life, then it may actually be targeted at males alone. The general ancient view was that the male seed carried the complete human and the woman was simply the fertile soil for the seed. Thus male on male sexual action would be a waste of life giving abilities, a great danger given the fragility of population at the time. But female on female sexual activity would not necessarily be any sort of waste, as long as a woman was also submissive to her role as a receiver and carrier of the seed when it was required.
In this story, as in the other biblical same-attractive dyadinal solemn relationship we will review, there is no evidence one way or another that there was any sexual relationships. But there is a great concern for life in this story. The task Naomi sets herself to with her partner is to help her reach her fulfillment and purpose according to the ancient understanding of women, whose purpose according to culture and customs was to bear children. Naomi helps Ruth acquire a spouse and a child, thereby securing herself a grandchild by means of levirate marriage law. Interestingly this child, Obed, is the grandfather of the next subject we will turn to in our biblical analysis of same-attractive dyadinal solemn relationships, King David.
That David had a special relationship with Saul’s son Jonathan is not secret knowledge. What is interesting for our purposes is the institutional form under which that relationship was expressed, a series of vowed covenantal relationships. In 1 Samuel 18 Jonathan first meets David and the text says,
Jonathan’s life became bound up with David’s life; he loved him as his very self. Saul retained David on that day and did not allow him to return to his father’s house. Jonathan and David made a covenant, because Jonathan loved him as his very self. Jonathan took off the cloak he was wearing and handed it over to David, along with his military dress, even his sword, bow, and belt.
The relationship they shared together is described as love. Which variety in the greek terms we are talking about is a little vague. Vague also, much like the story of Ruth, is any certainty about sexual activity. What is not vague is that the love shared between them is soul binding and transcends all other ties. When there is a test between Jonathan’s relationship with his father and his relationship with David it becomes quite clear that the bond between them is not the simple philia of men who have shared the thrill of battle. If this were the case, especially given the strength of royal familial ties in this culture, then Jonathan would have certainly sided with his father and had David slain. Instead Jonathan renews his ties and deep love for David and seems to form an everlasting bond between their offspring. At their rather emotional parting, “They kissed each other and wept aloud together. At length Jonathan said to David, “Go in peace, in keeping with what the two of us have sworn by the name of the Lord: ‘The Lord shall be between you and me, and between your offspring and mine forever.” (1 Sam 20:41-42) If consummation were physically available to such a vow then the definition would seem to be marraige. However this is not the case so, what we seem to have is a same-attractive dyadinal solemn relationship where a love is developed between two people of the same biological sex that is so deep that when David is informed of Jonathan’s death he laments, “ I grieve for you, Jonathan my brother! Most dear have you been to me; More wondrous your love to me than the love of women.” (2 Sam 1:26)
This raises an interesting counterpoint to how their same-attractive dyadinal solemn relationship works versus how one may work today. Both David and Jonathan had wives. As Mentioned before the way their relationship seemed to work was more than just dyadinal, but involved external loving relationships which seemed to augment their own. Regarding this it is important to note that given the tentative nature of population in the ancient world, to dismiss procreative ability was viewed as a criminal neglect to the common good. If one needed to engage in same sex love, then one would still be duty bound to have a partner with which one could procreate. You see this in Greek same-sexual relationships, where the sex is a cultural indicator of domination between the two participants, the penetrator and the penetrated. Apart from that there is the procreative necessity for men of having a female wife with whom to procreate for the common good. Stories such as Ruth and Naomi or David and Jonathan seem to set up a similar dynamic of same sex relationship coupled with procreative partner. Again in the book of Ruth, Naomi saw it as her task to acquire a good nuptial match for Ruth with Boaz so that they could find security culturally and with regards to progeny. Among many other wives and concubines David was first married to Saul’s daughter Michal, but did not seem to love her at all. The major difference between the Greek model and the Hebrew is the solemnity between the two same-attractive partners. The vowed relationship, and the fidelity therein, is the focus much more than any sexual relationship. So much so that it is easily arguable, or at least easily assumed, that there is no sexual relationship in either of these same-attractive dyadinal solemn relationships. It is fairly standard for the inspired writers of the Bible to take a common cultural trope and change it to suite the Biblical agenda. In this case what seems to be happening is that the Greek view of same-attractive relationships as a concupiscent domination is being countered by a biblical model that offers the flourishing of same-attractive love, as expounded upon earlier, in solemn relationships. The love is the focus, not the sex and certainly not any domination derived.
With the advent and development of Christianity something different became increasingly popular, the formation of same sex communities bound by a vow, but with an eschatological focus that invested them in celibacy not procreation. Procreation is a dire concern in a dangerous world if one assumes that the world is going to keep plodding on relatively uninterrupted. Once the belief is introduced that the world could end, or at least definitely change with regards to human existence and human sexual relations, there’s a new ball game. The Christian belief in a non-sexual eschaton invited communities oriented toward that eschaton to live non-sexual lives but not to squelch any other expression of love, for the eschaton is the fulfillment of love. Such communities introduce a new lack of urgency with regards to procreation. In our current culture that lack of urgency is so pronounced that the pendulum has swung to sexual activity being seen by some micro cultures as having little or nothing to do with reproduction and everything to do with expression of loving union.
The angle of this paper is that one can live the consecrated as a large community or a small one. If the numbers of a consecrated congregation dwindled down to two, they would still be in vowed relationship to each other. What if such a community started as and remained as two, how is that different? If the state allows them to adopt children, much like a large community may run an orphanage, how is that different? If your answer is there is strength in numbers you have just devalued the dyadinal relationship of monogamous marriage much like the patriarchs did in the book of Genesis through their system of polygamy and concubinage. It may be wise to turn to the interesting prologue of the story of the love between Jonathan and David. The first time we meet Jonathan in 1 Samuel chapter 14 he is campaigning against the Philistines. He and his armor bearer have slipped away from the Israelite camp to engage in some mischief against the Philistine camp. He says to his armor bearer, “Come, let us go over to that outpost of the uncircumcised. Perhaps the Lord will help us, because it is no more difficult for the Lord to grant victory by means of a few than it is by means of many.” He and his armor bearer engage in a sortie that ends up routing the entire Philistine force.
If your answer is we don’t need this structure because people can be married and develop appropriate same-attractive love through work and social life relationships, then we can dispense with religious congregations, or at least allow them to marry as well as be in the congregation. No one want’s to bring back polygamy or concubines. Everyone acknowledges that God can bring goodness from large or small at his discretion. No one want’s to devalue same sex oriented large communities. So the question remains, why not allow for an institution of consecrated dyads. There are only two reasons left, first is the near occasion of sin, but a strong argument has already been made for the dispensation of concern. The second is cultural bias, oppressive attitude, and fear of change for the better. Of these bias and oppression are actively and damagingly sinful and fear of change is “not good enough”, and possible working against the creative will of God. These two together make such fear as sinful to engage in as same-sexual activity itself, in fact sinful in exactly the same way.
Conclusion: The Love of Jesus as all Encompassing
To conclude, it is necessary as a Christian to analyse what Jesus’ life teaches us about same-attractive dyadinal solemn relationships.
The first thing that may need to be pointed out is that, according to the teaching of the Catholic church, Jesus is the raised by a dyadinal solemn relationship (though not same-attractive). A quick reading of Matthew 1:20,24 reveals that Mary and Joseph were “married”, but recall that according to the teaching of the church one must consummate a marriage in order for it to be sacramentally valid. Also recall that the Catholic Church holds mary as “ever virgin” believing that she and Joseph never had sex even after Jesus’ birth. This is based on the tradition of the church, being referred to in multiple councils, and staunchly asserted in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 499-501). Given that, Mary and Joseph did not do what was necessary for a binding sacramental marriage, they were only bound by a Hebrew marital ritual concerning vows. This syncs with the orthodox, though not canonical, proto-gospel of James, where Joseph is pictured as an aged widower with his own children who is charged as protector of a young virgin. This narrative is piously and traditionally supported by the Catholic culture.
The reason it is important to bring this up is that it has been made apparent that the church promotes same-sex vowed communities raising children, for example an order running an orphanage. Mary and Joseph demonstrate that a solemn dyad is quite capable of raising children according to God’s plan. Given these two facts, how could one deny a consecrated dyad the moral right to raise children?
The first thing one may notice about Jesus himself is that he does not engage in any solemn relationships. There is no gospel account where Jesus vowed himself to any specific male in a life binding relationship and there is no gospel account of Jesus vowing himself sacrally to any woman in marriage and certainly no account of him performing the necessary sacral actions. Either of these specific actions would be inappropriate for the Alpha and Omega of all creation to engage in. The simple fact here is that Jesus IS the sacrament, Jesus IS the solemnity. Any presence of sacrament or solemnity presences Jesus. It is through Jesus and in the Holy spirit that we have the means of any truly loving bond whether it be sacral or solemn. Jesus is present in any sacrament in that he instituted it and is the font of it’s grace. He is present in any solemnity because wherever two or three are gathered in his name, in this case gathered by means of an institutional solemn vow, he is there. At the same time, along with Jesus’ universal love comes a particular loving relationship for each of his children, and exploration of this will help us understand how Jesus is present in same-attractive relationships. This will be explored by means of the dynamic between Peter and the Beloved Disciple in John’s Gospel.
Despite his initial erotic call in Matthew recounted above, Peter’s relationship with Jesus seems to be more homofilial than anything else. Peter himself seems to drive this point home while he Jesus and their company are having breakfast on the beach John Chapter 21. In this famous story Jesus asks Peter if he loves [agape] him. Peter replies, “Yes Lord, you know that I love [philia] you.” Jesus then tasks Peter with a filial-loving cooperative goal, the feeding of the lambs. This pattern is repeated a second time with the same format for the words of love, Agape from Jesus and Philia from Peter and again Peter is similarly tasked, “tend my sheep”. Then Jesus offers one last time, “Simon son of John do you love [philia] me?” Most scholars ignore or dismiss the change of words here but Peter is distressed at the third questioning. It is possible that the distress springs from Jesus calling out Peter’s fear of going all in with regarding male to male love. He acknowledges this by acknowledging that Jesus “knows everything” and so he knows how he loves him. And once again there is a filial task, “feed my sheep.”
After this Jesus gives Peter an interesting postscript. He talks about Peter’s development from a person who acts according his own way to a person in conformity with Christ. “Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” This sacred author relates this as a redemptive prophecy connecting his denial of Jesus in Pontius Pilate's courtyard and how he dies as a martyr. We can draw out from that physical and fortitudnal development to a development of love. Filial love is usually portrayed as inferior to agapic love in the Christian tradition. Jesus in the repetition of questions offers Peter the chance to go all in from filial to agapic. In the end Jesus meets Peter where he is, the solid ground of filial love and tasks him with a common job. Peter is distressed at Jesus’ patience, but Jesus offers him redemption. Interestingly this story, just like the Davidic story, involves a change of clothes. Peter changes the clothes he has chosen in exchange for the binding of a prisoner, Jesus’ clothing when Peter had denied him. Once so clothed, Peter would act on the model of agapic love, not acting of his own accord, but self emptied and acting according to the will of another. A possible lesson is, perfect love will prevail, but Jesus enters the loving relationship you are ready to enter into in your life for now and will patiently draw you where you need to be.
The other interesting homoagapic exploration in John’s gospel is between Jesus and the Beloved Disciple. His title itself shows that there is some sort of deep loving relationship between this disciple and Jesus. The scene of this disciple laying his head on Jesus’ chest speaks of homoerotic love to the modern reader. The Beloved Disciple is trying to ascertain the name of the betrayer, but the methodology is that of the trusted beloved at a Greek banquet. The bond between Jesus and this disciple also leads to a relationship between the disciple and the church, but it is more profound that filial-functional like Peter’s relationship. The relationship is familial. It is to this disciple that Jesus entrusts his mother at his death. This family bonding ritual is reminiscent of David’s and Jonathan’s family bonding vow but in reverse, to the mother instead of the progeny, in the story the mother is symbolic of Jesus’ progeny, the Church.
There seems to be a competition between the loving relationship that Peter has for Jesus and the Loving relationship that The Beloved Disciple has for Jesus. This is best displayed in the race to the tomb after Mary Magdalene informs them of them that Jesus has risen. In the famous account the desire of the beloved disciple out matches the desire of Peter to the point of winning the race and his faithfulness out matches Peter in the restraint of not needing to enter the tomb, only seeing the linens in order to belive. The love expressed by the Beloved Disciple seems to be deeper and more profound.
All of this brings us back to that beach where Peter actively settled for a filial love and immediately regretted that that was where he was with regards to the Lord. After their present relationship was squared away, Jesus invites Peter for a walk, but as they walk the beloved disciple lingers close behind almost spectrally. Peter inquires, “What about him?” Jesus answers, “What if I want him to remain until I come? What concern is it of yours? You follow me.” The author asserts rumors started then that the Beloved Disciple would remain until the parousia, but interestingly it is asserted in the text that these are rumors. Peter’s love is active and dynamic in his relationship to Christ. Christ orders and he follows. The beloved Disciple remains and is passive and accepting, more agapic in nature from the acceptance of Jesus’ mother to the immediate acceptance of the resurrection this disciple’s love of Jesus is quite advanced of Peters at the point of this walk and his presence following along seems to be an irritating reminder of the advances in same-attractive love that Peter must make
.
In the end this paper will remind all self identifying heterosexual males that they are to fall in love with Jesus, and that the male Jesus already deeply loves them probably beyond their own comfort level much like Peter on the beach. Jesus agapically loves males. This is clear from the Christological hymn in Philippians asserting how Jesus emptied himself for the love of humanity. In this and in our mission as a church we have a filial love. We share humanity with Jesus, we share a mission. Males probably mostly take the emptying of Philippians as some sort of special religious love, and it is, but it’s deep profundity was met with violence in the ancient world, and if modern same-attractive phobias are any indicator it would be met with the same by men today. Uncomfortable as it may be for a man to hear, Jesus desires you, in deep and life binding ways. He asserts in John 12 :32 that he will draw everyone to himself, a notion that smacks of the erotic love that he not only has for us, but that he expects all males to have for him and each other.
To this end, what is my response as a male? How can I learn to love Jesus? In this paper, we traversed the three types of love and discovered that they are all acceptable for same-sex relationships. We learned that there are formal structures in the Church that facilitate the development of same-sex love in large groups and that these institutions also allow same sex people, bound through a solemn vow to raise children. The paper then explored the possibility of allowing these institutions to exist as consecrated dyads and discovered much evidence in the Bible for the approval of structuring such relationships to their proper end. The answer to my response to loving Jesus as a male is to utilize all types of binding love that participate in his perfect love. These would include sacral marital bonds, consecrated solemn vows and why could they not include a consecrated path of same-attractive dyadinal solemn relationships?
No comments:
Post a Comment