I have been asked for my opinion, particularly in view of the fact
that Limerick Diocese is linked with New Hampshire where the new bishop, Gene Robinson, is a proponent and
practitioner of same sex relationships. My answer already lies in the public domain with a letter published by the
Church of Ireland Gazette. For me the issue needs to be divided into two sections. The first is the ability of such
people to hold high office based on their qualities as a human being. I see no problem with that, in fact quite the
reverse. A number of my friends are of this persuasion and I would rather all of them were occupying high office
within the Christian Church than many of the present incumbents! All of them have expanded my conception of life as
it can be lived. They seem to have a different dimension to life which transcends the traditional male/female in
terms of caring and compassion.
The second issue is that of theology. Human beings live two lives, the
first as a socio physical entity to survive on planet earth and the second as an organism which aspires to a
spiritual propensity including life after death with all the baggage this entails. Can one have a spiritual theology
which indicates that God's purpose includes the physical qualities of same sex relationships. Here I am left to
wonder. Why? Two reasons. The first is the lesson of God's law of Nature, where all who do not replicate naturally
become extinct. The second arises from discussions with a practising psychiatrist friend who has many clients who
practise same sex relationships. His view is nothing if direct! Most, in his experience, do so through fear of the
opposite sex, peer pressure and social upbringing, not really the stuff upon which to base eternal theology! Equally
one reads of reports around the world about the effects of pollution. Today's male generation are half as fertile as
their grandparents; the pollution of the oceans are leading to an increase in gay relationships among many species;
even drinking consistently from polythene containers seems to have an effect on the super-highway of our genetic
code, leading to a disposition towards same sex relationships.
Therein lies the problem. Same sex
relationships have been with us since humanity first became communicative. In Nature the universal law of natural
selection remains, replicate or die out. Yet humanity has the ability to transcend this law of Nature. Hospitals and
our care of the infirm, the elderly and the disadvantaged attest to this. We seem to possess an extra dimension to
existence not contemplated by Nature which, however we view it, still remains one of Gods creative laws. Can,
however, it be extended to include my psychiatrists views or the researches into the global effects of pollution?
Probably not. In this scenario we are faced with the possibility of homosexuality as being a product of human
frailty and error, yet an impossible one to avoid let alone eradicate. Its there. Its part of our lives. In our
physical/socio existence we must accept it, even rejoice in some of the outlooks it can generate.
Nor
must we deny or take on board the commendable move in secular society towards a complete acceptance of same sex
relationships, particularly those of a stable and lasting nature. (I do not think any of us would commend profligate
relationships of any variety). Yet, (and there is always for me a 'yet'!), religion has that extra dimension of
theology and God's will and purpose as expressed through Creation. For all religious people the holistic attitude to
life must encompass both the secular and sacred. No one can deny the importance of a caring, loving and lasting
relationship of whatever description or proclivity. So what are we talking about? It devolves down onto physical
acts. Here Nature has more to say than I, but I am left to wonder whether it is even possible to have a theology of
the sexual act! Where would one stop?! Would it define how many times a week or positions recognised as acceptable?
Of course the question is - 'with which sex?', but can one have element of it without the other? Going down this
road can but lead to a rather hilarious 'reductio ad absurdum', and not worth even contemplating, despite what any
of our African neighbours may advocate.
So where does that leave us? With a real debate not begun or even
contemplated. Appeals on either side to the Bible are, in my view, irrelevant. Those times were too full of the
acceptance of concubines, slavery, misogyny, and autocratic rule to have much to contribute to our generation. My
letter to the Gazette called on the Church to liaise with Science to produce a working document on the origins of
and problems posed by same sex relationships. The problem is that we simply do not have enough informed knowledge.
On the one hand such predilections have no bearing on a person's spiritual, emotional, intellectual or compassionate
behaviour. Consequently Canon John and Gene Robinson should become bishops provided they have the spiritual
qualities and experience necessary. Equally, in the present uncertain climate of opinion and our lack of knowledge,
it is naive of either of them to claim homosexuality as a gift from God, and that God is challenging Humanity
through these relationships. I say this for two main reasons. First there is confusion in Science as to how it
originates. Are we dealing purely with a genetic mix up of the x and y chromosomes, an aberration in Nature which
Nature tends to deal with harshly, i.e. those who do not replicate become extinct? Or are we concerned with what
happens, for example, in the womb?
Then there is the conflicting evidence from psychiatrists. It is clear
to me that not only do we need a comprehensive view of sexuality, and one which necessarily transcends the earthly
social order to possibly encompass theology. We desperately need a theological view of Nature, Ecology, and the laws
of natural selection into which to place homosexuality. Or perhaps we don't? It would be very hard to produce a
theology which encompassed the insane.
For the present, the debate seems to be characterised by an
unfortunately aggressive Fundamentalism on both sides, producing arguments of an entrenched nature which,
inevitably, can never be won. The solution does not lie either with Gene Robinson or with the conservative
evangelicals who oppose him. Both sides, for me, bring Christianity into disrepute. Canon John was to be commended
for deciding to be celibate. I do not regard this as a final solution, but a generous and truly sacrificial gesture
on his part for the sake of the unity of the Church. There must be a more informed, comprehensive and empathic
debate on the issue.
At present my feeling is that we must divorce theology from all sexual acts. The
strength and longevity of relationships is of more importance than sexual orientation. Having said that should
Theology conform not only to the life and times of Jesus but to all the laws which govern God's Universe, including
the survival of those who can and do replicate, which would probably exclude gays and lesbians?
Yet
Humanity can and does transcend this principle in terms of care of the poor, the sick, the elderly, the downfallen,
the insane, all of whom would be destroyed by Nature's application of 'Survival of the fittest'. After all, which is
more important? Our eternal spiritual existence and how we develop this on earth through caring loving
relationships, or who we have sex with?