A friend, Chuck Colbert, has given me his thesis to read. Written as part of his requirements for a graduate degree in theology, his paper argues the case for the Catholic Church to recognize same-sex marriage, both civilly and sacramentally.

Chuck himself entered into such a marriage last fall in a civil ceremony at our city hall. Later in the year, he and his partner celebrated their union in a religious ceremony presided over by a Jewish woman rabbi, an appropriate ritual because Chuck had recently converted from the Catholic faith to Judaism.

I attended both events and rejoiced at the good fortune of two friends finding one another as life partners. Though gay marriage carries some problems for me, I find values in it that deserve to be celebrated. It’s not as if we have so much love in the world that we should fail to treasure it, even when this love finds a setting unfamiliar to us.

In his thesis, Chuck skillfully draws on the tradition crafted by Catholic theologians of the distant past and the present. Similarly, he discusses two papal encyclicals that express views of marriage different from those that had prevailed earlier. And he finds support in some views of the late John Paul II as they apply to personal relationships.

Many Christians, if not most, see the Bible as condemning homosexuality in all of its expressions. My friend, however, uses the work of the late Yale scholar John Boswell to offer a closer analysis of those biblical passages that have been interpreted as condemning same sex activity. The Jewish and Christian scriptures, the thesis writer concludes, present no obstacles to same-gender sexual unions.

Despite the admittedly strong negative elements in the official church’s views of homosexual activity, Chuck is not discouraged. “The Roman Catholic tradition is a robust and dynamic one,” he writes. “I believe the kinds of changes that I suggest will eventually come about.” Thus he considers his study one that breathes hope rather than despair.

My appraisal of the case my friend makes is, in many ways, positive. I believe the Catholic Church, along with other religious communities, ought to recognize spiritual values in the love that gay and lesbian couples have for one another. And discrimination against homosexual people should be held abhorrent by people of all faiths.

However, I have three main difficulties with the suggestion that the Catholic Church could and should embrace same-sex unions as its own.

First, there is the multi-national character of the Catholic Church. This church cannot limit its attention to the United States. It must also respect the many diverse cultures, ideologies, traditions, and attitudes of the people who belong to it in other nations. People in many parts of the world remain far from acceptance of homosexuality.

It would take thoroughgoing changes in mentality on the part of these people before they would support same-gender marriage. I don’t think the church could possibly move toward an embrace of such marriage while large sections of its people opposed it.

Secondly, I am convinced that the Catholic Church would first need to change its official position on sexual activity in general before it can move to a different appraisal of gay and lesbian unions. Currently, all sexual activity on the part of unmarried people of any stripe is regarded as immoral. Though not many would seem to think this position still reasonable, the official church continues to hold to it adamantly  

Thirdly, I consider same-gender and male-female marriages as two different realities. I do not deny their similarities but I continue to regard them as distinct. To me, words are vitally important because they signify reality. The word “marriage” signifies a sexual union between male and female persons that differs from the union of male and male, along with female and female. That is the way a well-established tradition has delivered it to us.

A different word should be found for these latter bondings, though I admit not having found an appropriate one. The word “marriage” might be acceptable for gay and lesbian unions if the word were joined with another to distinguish it from heterosexual marriage.

For me as a man, a sexual relationship with a woman is unique. Women differ from me in their physical being, in their emotional life, and in spiritual life. I am not saying that no elements from these spheres of women’s life are present in males, or in some males, but I still find women unique. I value the difference.

And I believe that, for me as a male, entering into a sexual relationship with a woman inevitably differs from what entering into a sexual relationship with someone of my same gender would be.

The Catholic Church needs to find spiritual and human value in the marital unions of homosexual people, but it cannot accept these unions on the same sacramental footing as heterosexual marriage anytime soon.

Richard Griffin