Assuming, with the Church, that:

1) Marriage, proper, is (and can only be) between a man and a woman and lasts for life.

2) A valid marriage, according to Canon Law, consists (partially) in: A) The full, free, informed consent of both parties, B) The ability to consummate the marriage through the sexual act "in itself apt for the generation of offspring" (Can. 1061.1).
[NB: The marriage is invalid if one of the two spouses is impotent, NOT infertile/sterile]

It seems that a man or woman with SSA could potentially enter into a valid, sacramental, Catholic marriage with a member of the opposite sex. The greatest possible impediment to this union appears to be that of impotence. To crank down the language formality a few notches: If there exists enough sexual attraction between the two persons to "get it up" AND to climax, then it seems like the conditions are met. However, if one party simply CANNOT be aroused by the other, it seems that a valid marriage is not possible.

So I guess my discussion revolves around the issues raised by the somewhat simplistic conditions for marriage laid out by Canon Law.

For example: Many people with SSA have stated that they are still somewhat attracted (sexually) to members of the opposite sex. Some, however, are only attracted to those of the same sex. Provided impotence is not an issue, should SSA Catholics be allowed to seek marriage? Should they be encouraged to do so? Ought the Church's exhortation to chastity be restricted to those SSA Catholics who are not at all attracted to the opposite sex?

A nice consolidation of Catholic Canon Law on the issue of marriage can be found here:
http://www.catholicdoors.com/misc/marriage/canonlaw.htm

Concerning my last discussion question: The Church of course calls all of her sons and daughters to some form of chastity. I simply wonder if the prescription that ALL same-sex attracted persons live a celibate, chaste life might be a misreading of the Church's position (especially if Christian marriage is possible for the SSA person).

Greg -

I'm no canonist, but I think you've faithfully interpreted what the Church has to say.

I don't read anywhere that the Church expects celibacy of all same-sex attracted people. The fact is that there are a good number of married people who experience attractions to members of the same sex. It does add a layer of complexity to the relationship, and I would think that it would only be right to let one's spouse-to-be know of the situation before contracting the bond. In that way, one could be more certain that both the man and woman are freely entering the bond, with an understanding of the challenges they are committing to face with and for each other.

I'd echo Clayton here. SSA individuals are not called to celibacy.

The simple answer, and you both arrived at it, is that many SSA men can marry.

Whether or not we ought to marry is, I'm sure, one of those questions the Church wisely leaves up to one's individual conscience, informed by the universal teaching on love, marriage, and human sexuality.

As I understand it, canon lawyers are increasingly hearing appeals for dissolution on grounds of impaired or impossible consent, especially where the man's inclinations might have been latent at the time of marriage.

I've never encouraged New York style marriages. No Catholic, no poor woman, is called to a sham life.

- JH

I don't get it, then. If we're not called to celibacy, but are not called to sham marriages, then what's left? Maybe that "disinterested friendships" you have spoken of before?

What's left? Why do you want some proscriptive, and / or prescriptive treatment?

A man is not made to be told what it is, precisely, he is to do with each moment of his life. We are to live lives worthy of the Gospel.

How we do it marks our salvation / fall.

- JH

Well, to clarify: A person with SSA who is capable of both falling in love with a person of the opposite sex and of expressing that love through the sexual act may also be called to a perfectly valid, Sacramental, Christian marriage. But that possibility--and that of a celibate life--ultimately rests on the individual's own vocational discernment. But celibacy (in multiple forms) and marriage, as vocations, are the only two options when it comes to expressing one's sexuality.

It's not a "sham" marriage unless one believes that the person with SSA is being "untrue" to "who they really are" if they get married to someone of the opposite sex. This, I would argue, is only true if one party is genuinely not able to love the other through the sexual act--in which case it's not a marriage in the first place.

I think that the "fear" of the celibate life--upon some reflection--is rather unfounded. Keep in mind that the celibate life has never been a promise of perpetual "singleness" or some sort of sentence of eternal solitude. There is still some mysterious sense by which every one of us finds our vocation precisely IN MARRIAGE--but on different "planes," as it were. Those who devote themselves to a celibate, virginal lifestyle are preparing themselves for "The Marriage"--between Christ and His Bride, the Church--through the practice of "agape" love. As Pope Benedict points out in his encyclical "God is Love": "God's eros for man is also totally agape." That is, to us, God's passionate love looks like agape love, a complete gift of Himself. Those who become married become "icons" of the union between Christ and the Church by allowing Christ to transform and purify their erotic love into one permeated by agape. Those who remain celibate, in some sense, demonstrate the opposite: that the agape love in which they live--while not physically sexual--is also romantic and passionate. This is most clearly demonstrated in the lives of the Saints, who were driven to express their love of God by loving Him through their fellow man.

So, in some sense, celibates are not called to "disinterested friendships." Rather, they are called to "superinterested" friendships: they are called to love as Christ did. Those called to celibacy are called to love beyond "mere" sex.

"Disinterested" is a much maligned word, or maybe simply not a helpful one in our time and place.

Disinterested actually means something like superinterested... in the sense of not-being-self-interested.

Wow, John, the succinctity of this answer leaves me more baffled than the longest of your blogs! ;)

I don't think that's what Mark, or most any other Catholic who experiences ssa, hopes to get - although a necessary form of clarity does help. Since when are either celibacy or even a "sham marriage" examples of being told what do with each moment of one's life?

"We are to live lives worthy of the Gospel." Even you must admit that such a statement requires MUCH, MUCH effort, which goes beyond the immense generality of your sentence - we require knowledge of that Good News, and this isn't as simple as some would like to believe (I'm thinking *sola scriptura* types here, for example).

I know I don't have to ask you to expound on it (I'm sure by now I have a pretty okay idea of many of your thoughts, from your awesome blog), but the response wasn't really "hitting the nail on the head" as much as you usually do.

I also hope that Mark and others like him don't *actually* see this as such a dichotomy! Like the only option besides celibacy is a sham marriage? Umm, I don't think so! Also, I'm a bit confused about "celibacy", in the sense that sometimes some people confuse it with "chastity", but I wouldn't blame most people about that because celibacy seems to be the more radical example of chastity (so, they're obviously related). I'm sure you, personally, aren't confused by that, but some people are, so, I'm just laying it out there :).

Anyway - hopefully, there's a bit of irony in the voice of some people who currently ask, "celibacy or sham marriage? Hmmm..." ;) If not, man, that really sucks!

-Jaime

Ah, one more thing: I just think it's interesting how many of us talk about the *potentiality* of such a thing happening - at least with the knowledge we have now about homosexuality, etc., especially coming from the Church and related groups.

I guess what I would call a deeper question would be if such marriages are actually valid...

John said: "Whether or not we ought to marry is, I'm sure, one of those questions the Church wisely leaves up to one's individual conscience, informed by the universal teaching on love, marriage, and human sexuality." Man, there's something that irks me about this argument, because I don't believe that this is one of those things the Church "leaves up to one's conscience", mainly because it's pretty important! It's a perfectly valid question to ask with the aforementioned knowledge (if ssa people "should" - because "can" we? Of course we CAN, but SHOULD we?). This is exactly the moral business of the Church, to help inform our conscience about how we *should* live, and the choice that we get, our excercise of conscience, is whether to choose what we *should* do or choose what we *shouldn't*.

Hey, what's wrong with saying, "Gosh, I don't know; let me look into that," once in a while? I think the Church has nothing to lose if once in a while she's, like, "hmm, good question." And that's it. :-D No losing face; she's not saying she's mistaken, just, that she'll take the time to figure it out and the inquisitive soul should help her out (all with God's Grace, of course). You know, I think this is what we're doing right now, in fact, what John's doing, in fact: participating in this sacred learning process. Maybe; those're just my thoughts.

-Jaime

Jaime,

Of course. It's not either celibacy, or a sham marriage. I never said it was a dichotomy. I was resisting the very idea.

We are called to chastity. I can't stress that enough. We are called to love. We are called to live lives, as I said, worthy of the Gospel.

The balance is freedom. Into that space comes human genius, human sorrow, and grace. When we fail, we turn to G-d's great mercy. I can't tell you how to live, in dot-point form, because I don't know - from moment to moment - beyond the broad outlines.

No homogenital acts, then, and no one is permitted to choose sin. Beyond that, as you say - we will learn together.

- JH

Right, I got the dichotomy angle form Mark :)
I resist the very idea as well!

Thanks for your response!
-Jaime