From a reader…
QUAERITUR:
I was recently in a discussion with other Catholics about the following scenario, and we weren’t able to come to an agreement, or find an answer online: would it be possible for a man and a woman to validly marry each other if one or both of them were exclusively same-sex attracted, and both parties were aware of this fact? Or would this case fall under the impediment of impotence (C.I.C. can. 1084)?
“DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!”
Questions like this are difficult. I consulted. I’m redrafting my findings. I’m afraid I cannot be exhaustive. Here are some considerations.
There is an inherent danger in trying to craft an answer for a hypothetical marriage situation. Each situation has its own complex particularities.
Impotence (can. 1084) is a specific issue with two aspects that must be considered: 1) the ability of the person to engage in the marital act in general, and 2) the ability of the person to engage in the marital act with a specific person.
Without getting too crass, Titius might be physical capable of sex, but Titius might not be capable of the sex with Sempronia. There could be physical or psychological reasons for that. Impotence, either general or specific, could possibly invalidate a marriage if it is present at the time of consent and unable to be “resolved” in a normal fashion.
I’m informed that most marriage cases in which the question of homosexuality arises, are treated under can. 1095, indeed usually can. 1095, 3, which treats an incapacity for marriage due to a grave psychological condition. Someone who is exclusively same-sex attracted might be incapable of marriage, but there are questions that need to be asked first.
On 1 October 1986, the CDF under the great Card. Ratzinger, issued a pastoral letter to the bishops on the pastoral care of homosexual persons. It is an exceptional document. Re-reading it makes one long for the days when the dicasteries of the Holy See issued documents that provided wise pastoral guidance for those in the trenches.
In one paragraphs in the document, in section 16, we read,
“The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Everyone living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents, and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the case of the human person when she refuses to consider the person solely as a ‘heterosexual’ or a ‘homosexual’ and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God, and by grace, His child and heir to eternal life.”
This is one reason why the Church should not have specific “ministries” or liturgical celebrations for one societal category: they reduce people to one mere aspect of his person.
Among the characteristics we have there are some that are immutable. For example, I am Caucasian, I am a male, etc., in spite of what director Christopher Nolan might make of me. Then there are characteristics that are deeply ingrained in me: I am right-handed although with persistence, I could probably write with my left hand… after fashion, not that my writing with the right hand is any good any more. Then there are shifting behavioral characteristics: I like Roman baroque music, I tend to be a night owl, I don’t like Canadian whiskey. But tastes can change over time.
In a specific marriage case, we’d have to dig a bit to figure our where our subject’s same sex attraction falls. To some, it may seem immutable. That’s certainly what society and certain Jesuits want us to believe now. “They’re made that way!” For some, it may be simply behavioral. “It was just a phase.” For some the disordered impulse could fall in the middle category of a fairly solidly ingrained characteristic and even then there’s a range of how deeply ingrained it is.
If Titius struggles with a same-sex attraction, but wants to marry Sempronia, then some things need to be addressed at the pastoral level. First of all, is Sempronia aware of all this? Secondly, does Titius think that he would be capable of engaging in healthy and normal intimate relations with Sempronia, and not just “I’m going to grit my teeth and think of England”, but all that goes with a life of real, physical intimacy. It can’t be a matter of just suppressing his feelings, but it should be real, oblative (sacrificial) love and affection for his intended spouse.
On top of all this, we should avoid the trap our age, sloppy notions of “luv”, etc. We are human beings, not animals. Though there are impulses and even at certain ages hormones which push us here or there, love in marriage is an act of will, a choice especially to help your spouse get to Heaven. The good of the other must be up front.
Years ago when I was a kid (mid 1970s) a girl who used to babysit my brothers and I got married. A short time later she moved back home and being a little kid I found that odd.
It wasn’t until I was a young adult my mother told me what happened. After six weeks of marriage she discovered that her then-husband was homosexual.
My mother said she was able to get an annulment, which I think was granted by the court system in California since her marriage was less than 90 days. I have heard today too many lawyers want to pad their bank accounts such that annulments through the legal system (certain criteria have to be met) with the exception of maybe Las Vegas are rare today.
Re Canadian whisky, have you tried Forty Creek?
Regarding “societal categories”, this is something in particular which has troubled me about the majority of “recovery ministries” or Catholic-branded “12-Step Programs”. These programs often seek to divide the goats into flocks, or tribes, based on their specific dysfunction! One program I knew had a bunch of separate meetings for you to choose, based on your worst vice!
Now I did a thought experiment where I considered how religious institutes are formed and ordered: according to their charisms, according to spirituality, according to the works which they do for the faithful. Now the Church proposes to lump me in with “addicts to X” or something? How is that ordered towards holiness?
And that is one aspect of all those ministries seemingly leading dysfunctional people away from the church, away from communal liturgical celebrations, and into the shadows. It’s not right to sweep us into the shadows, is it?
I think it’s laudable for parishes to “welcome gays” and open their doors to sinners of all stripes. Just don’t set up ministries like that, sorting us into boxes and plugging us into sin-shaped pigeon holes.
“a girl who used to babysit my brothers and I got married”. This is a case where the case of the pronoun changes the meaning. A girl and I got married? Or a girl who used to babysit my brother’s and me.
Thank you, Fr. Z, for this thoughtful post. I have wondered about this several times before, considering specially the situation of those struggling with SSA and decided to be faithful to God and the Church (though not exclusively, as younger generations also have more and more difficulty pairing up and forming families). Living a whole single life in the past was more unusual, but also extended families were more common, and therefore single people had wider safety nets than they have nowadays.
I digress. Point was, while this issue is usually considered under the light of annulment –what if someone marries and then discovers that the other person cannot be intimate with them– I have thought about it in terms of… let’s imagine Titus and Sempronia are very good friends, and very aware of the fact that they are not attracted to each other and convinced that it is unlikely they would eventually come to want to be intimate with each other. Marriage would allow them company, mutual economical, psychological and spiritual support, even, perhaps children through adoption, etc. Would it be wrong for them to attempt marriage, perhaps even a sacrilege, if they married aware of a known impediment? AFAIK a Josephite marriage still requires that the couple *could* become intimate; bride and groom are given to each other, and each renounces making use of what is given. Hence I always thought the impediment of impotence applied, and that an attempted marriage would be in the end a simulation. But after reading this post I can see how I was looking at it in a very fixed way that doesn’t overlap with reality that well. People change, healing happens, and maybe at some point Titus and Sempronia discover it not to be that unlikely after all, and a longer engagement would be advisable in hopes of that change. Or one does and the other doesn’t. More complicated than I thought.
As usual, a clear and thorough explanation. Well done, Pater. You prove yourself a reliable catechist yet again!