Presbyters & Homosexuality, Roman Catholic and Reformed Catholic approaches compared

In an essay, “Homosexuality – Rome and the Episcopal Church” of December 1st, I contrasted the teaching of the Roman Catholic and Episcopal Churches on the priesthood and homosexuality. I found them to be very different. I was able to be fairly precise on the differences because each Church has recently published statements on the matter -- On Priesthood and those with homosexual tendencies (Rome, November 05) and To Set our Hope on Christ (New York City, June 05) from the Presiding Bishop of the ECUSA. [I responded to the latter in Same-Sex Affection, Holiness & Ordination, August 05 –to obtain, visit www.anglicanmarketplace.com]

As far as I am aware, the Reformed Catholic, or traditionally Anglican, position has not been fully stated by any official body recently. That is, it has not been set forth by any ecclesial province of the Anglican Communion that is committed to the authority of Scripture and to the secondary authority of the Anglican Formularies; or to use the words of Canon A5 of the Church of England: “The doctrine is grounded in the holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular, such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.” Of course, there are conservative and liberal statements from a variety of groups and there are statements from the Lambeth Conference of Bishops and the Primates’ Meeting, but none of them may be called Reformed Catholic in character.

The Reformed Catholic position has to be sought from the Scriptures (as interpreted by the guidance of the mind of the ancient Fathers), and the Formularies. In the latter case from such texts as (a) the marriage service in the BCP of 1662, especially the Preface; (b) the services of ordination in the Ordinal, especially the promises made by the priest and bishop; and (c) the homilies on “Whoredom and Adultery” and “The State of Matrimony” in The Books of Homilies to which the Articles of Religion point for doctrine.

As the Reformed Catholic position is much nearer to the Roman Catholic position than to the position of the ECUSA, it will be convenient first of all to state the Roman Catholic position and then show where the Reformed Catholic is different, if at all. Here is a quote from the recent R.C. document:

From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.

Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter.

In the light of such teaching, this dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture."

As far as I can tell, Reformed Catholic teaching wholly agrees with the teaching here presented that distinguishes acts from tendencies, calling the first grave sins and the second disordered. Where both the Roman Catholic and the Reformed Catholic take a different position to much popular Evangelical teaching (which has dominated the conservative Anglican response) is their reluctance or refusal to speak of “sexual orientation” which allows the suggestion and then the doctrine (firmly in place in the ECUSA) that some people are “objectively ordered” towards the same sex. This is because they interpret modern experience by the light of Revelation rather than modifying the light of Revelation by the “assured results” of modern experience.

Where Reformed Catholic and Roman Catholic teaching part is over the matter of priestly celibacy. The Roman priest is to be celibate and affectively mature so that as a man he is ordered towards the female sex. However, by the assistance of the Holy Ghost he is, as the representative of Christ the Bridegroom, to be ordered towards the congregation of Christ’s disciples as the Bride of Christ, to care for them. The Anglican priest may be either celibate or married. If the former, then he may be described in the same terms as the Roman priest. If married, then united to his wife as one flesh for life, he is also in affective maturity both to love her and to love with her help, in the Bridegroom’s name, the flock of Christ entrusted to his care.

Where “orientation” enters into the description of homosexuality, then the biblical and historic Christian teaching on sexual relations has to be set aside, at least in its fullness, and the door is wide open to changed doctrine, and this is happening right now within Anglicanism worldwide. One recalls a similar change in doctrine with consequences still occurring, when the Lambeth Conference of Bishops in 1930 departed from Reformed Catholicism and recommended that artificial contraception be encouraged for use by Christian couples.

[Do visit www.anglicanmarketplace.com and for tracts and essays by Peter Toon go to www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928 ]

December 2, 2005 petertoon@msn.com