…anyone surveying the cultural and political scene with a dispassionate eye would surely have to come to other conclusions: the general erosion of the instance of life-long marriage in North America and Europe, the rise in divorce rates, and the concomitant upsurge in the number of single-parent families, are all well-known to us in secular discussions, but are by no means absent from church-attending, or indeed Protestant clerical, families.
Only a short time ago, for instance, the clergy of the Diocese of Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts received a mailing calmly announcing that one of their suffragan bishops was undergoing a divorce.
One could not but be struck by the air of enforced “normalcy” and psychological adjudication that hung over this letter – no regrets, no confessions, no distress even, and certainly no reference to either bible or Christian tradition: just an insistence that the couple had been “faithful in caring for … each other” in the past, but were now “clear” about the fact that their marriage was “ending.”
I just have to comment on her example of the divorce announcement. I disagree with her take on it. She apparently wanted a gnashing of teeth and rhetorical sackcloth included in the letter. IMO, that’s highly inappropriate.
Because of the public nature of a bishop’s ministry and the gossip that can envelope it, yes, an announcement had to be issued, unfortunately. But that’s it. Otherwise, what this couple is going through is private and, while Ms. Coakley may have wanted some lamentations, explanations and breast-beating from the church, the couple and their situation should not be used to reflect on the religious views and/or implications of divorce. In other words, leave them alone.
But that’s partly the problem with her topic. For some reason, religious people are increasingly intrusive about other people’s private (and sex) lives. They love to make assumptions. And what they don’t know, they’re quite apt to make up to suit their prejudices. My Catholic parents had two children; they desired more but it simply didn’t happen. They were “suspected” of using birth control and often treated as if that assumption was fact. Sad. I am single and celibate. People have tried to insinuate everything from closet lesbianism to a quiet divorce in my past. Please.
In this age of Twitter, Facebook, blogs and other media, judgments can be made and accusations spread to millions of people in minutes. Instead of feeding it and letting the chips fall where they may, these powers should be used more responsibly by all players.
I despise what the public is doing in the Shriver-Schwarzenegger debacle. I hate those podium confessions of infidelity and the public “stand by your man” requirements made on the innocent spouses. All of the assumptions, armchair analysis, and hateful words that affect the whole family, including the innocent parties.
It’s as if society (and the church, oftentimes) feel morally compelled to publicly and thoroughly humiliate those whose lives don’t reflect the neat standards and expectations prescribed. And they wonder why there’s some belligerence and, perhaps, rebellion?
When I was ordained in 1966 clergy who divorced were required to resign their parishes and in some places resign from the ministry. Lay people seeking to be married after divorces were required to show grounds for an ecclesiastical annullment. Such grounds included “concurrent contract inconsistent with the contract constituting canonical marriage” and “such defects of personality as to make free consent impossible” (or some such). My priest father used to say that one could drive a coach and four through that last loophole. Later many bishops gave consent for a second marriage, even for clergy, but some required some professional counselling for third marriages.
This article is simply a whitewash job if favor of homosexuality. The arguments are straw men, starting the the proposition that celibacy is impossible. She then makes this dubious proposition an absolute and braces her argumentative feet against it. After all, for some people whose sexual drive is weak, celibacy is neither difficult nor troublesome.
(And, incidentally, the last report I saw said the divorce rate was dropping.) Larry
This is hardly an argument for homosexual relationships. A patient and honest reading of this piece, and her work more widely, will lead one to understand that Coakley is in fact arguing, among other things:
1) against the belief that celibacy is impossible, and even suggests that married people often and willingly choose celibacy for certain periods of time for a variety of reasons;
2) that far from being harmful, celibacy is in fact of great benefit to its practitioners;
3) that our exclusive focus on homosexual relationships is imbalanced, to the point that we lack a wider understanding of what sex is generally. Christians tend to have an under-examined view of the role of sex in marriage, and a lack of appreciation for the benefits continence can bring to a Christian marriage. Hence her questioning the sentiment that the more sex a married couple has, the better their relationship will be.
She is, in fact, arguing for celibacy for those who consider themselves homosexual, and urging us all to reconsider our view of sexual desire generally. Her argument has a strong foundation in the Church Fathers, not only with Gregory of Nyssa who she cites here, but also with Augustine and several others.