78. Martin, Building a Bridge, 16. For a cognate discussion, see Alison, “Following the Still Small Voice.” O’Gorman writes, “Many of the women I have met during my lesbian and gay ministry are vulnerable because of the hostility they have experienced from our church and our culture. They are criticized or condemned because all too frequently others see them as engaging in deviant sexual activity. Heterosexuals have often been fixated on this—as though being gay is only about having sex. But it is much deeper than that. . . . [I]t is really all about identity. It is about who I am at my core, the center of my being. It is as deep as questions about who I am as a woman or a man.” (O’Gorman and Perkins, Living True, 59). I accept that homosexual orientation is often found at the “core” and “center,” but homosexual acts are not thereby mandated or justified, for reasons I discuss more fully in my book on temperance. For further explorations in “queer” theology, see Cornwall, Controversies in Queer Theology; Méndez-Montoya, “Eucharistic Imagination.”
79. Arguably, even changing Scripture and Tradition would not solve the problem, which ultimately is rooted in our created sexual bodies that bestow unique privileges upon male-female couples. On this point, see Fastiggi, “Human Equality and Non-discrimination,” 9. See also Girgis, Anderson, and George, What Is Marriage?, 87: “Whatever the state says . . . no same-sex or group relationship will include organic bodily union, or find its inherent fulfillment in procreation, or require, quite apart from the partners’ personal preferences, what these two features demand: permanent and exclusive commitment.”
80. Martin, Building a Bridge, 18. Later in his book, Martin notes that “there are many reasons why almost no gay clergy, and almost no gay and lesbian members of religious orders, are public about their sexuality” (Building a Bridge, 42). One reason that Martin does not name, however, is that talking about one’s sexuality is not something that people generally do unless they are seeking to act upon their sexual desires. People who have taken a vow of celibacy or who have received the sacrament of marriage do not need to go around talking publicly “about their sexuality” (Building a Bridge, 42.), unless perhaps their job involves concretely instructing others in the practice of chastity.
81. David Cloutier pinpoints a fundamental element of the current situation: “The existence of sexual nature is dead; what we have left is sexual energy that we can direct in creative ways. What constitutes good sexual desire is its creativity. It has no inherent purpose other than exploration and intensification of emotions and bodily prowess” (Cloutier, Love, Reason, and God’s Story, 99). Cloutier is here responding to Grosz, “Refiguring Lesbian Desire,” 278.
82. Guroian, The Orthodox Reality, 125. Guroian goes on to explain, “Marriage is a sacrament of love but not just any sort of love. This love union is founded and grounded in God’s will, in his creative act of making humankind as male and female so that, through their love for each other and their sexual union, they may be united ‘in one flesh’” (Guroian, The Orthodox Reality, 129). He notes that when marriage is seen to depend solely on mutual love and consent (with no other criteria), then it becomes formless. As he says, “it is easy to imagine that the sorts of changes in marriage law and tax codes that the supporters of same-sex marriage have won may eventually have to be extended to other same-sex households that are not homosexual. How can the state possibly discriminate—or even ask the questions needed to discriminate—between homosexual and heterosexual couples of the same sex that come to get licensed? How can the state differentiate one love from another? If marriage is no longer defined as strictly between a man and a woman, why shouldn’t widows or widowers or brothers or sisters who live together for mutual assistance and economic reasons be granted licenses for domestic partnerships with all the legal benefits and protections now accorded to married couples?” (Guroian, The Orthodox Reality, 130). See also the contention of Adriano Oliva, O.P. in his L’amicizia più grande that for Thomas Aquinas the essence of marriage does not include the sexual act. Numerous scholars have responded, showing that this claim (which is ludicrous on its face) rests upon profound misunderstandings. See for example Blankenhorn et al., “Aquinas and Homosexuality,” and Casanova and Serrano del Pozo, “Being and Operation of Mary’s Marriage.”
83. Guroian, The Orthodox Reality, 132; see also 133–38. Notably, Guroian ties this point to the fact that “Christ is the groom and the church is his bride of the new creation. The referent of the groom is the first man, Adam, and the referent of the bride is the first woman, Eve. The nuptial Adam-Eve humanity of the book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, is the analogue of the heavenly nuptials of the marriage of the Lamb in the book of Revelation (19:7), the last book of the Bible. The creation of nuptial humanity is an epiphany of the eternal humanity of God precedent to its complete revelation in the incarnation. The creation of nuptial humanity is a prophecy of the church, which itself, through its nuptial union with Christ, fulfills the goal and purpose of creation. Human willing and choosing cannot change marriage’s essence or the symbolism that God has ordained for it. Thus in the Orthodox faith there could never be such a thing as same-sex marriage. There is not a same-sex equivalent to bride and groom. To insist that there are such equivalencies and to act on this error not only represents marriage as something it is not but also envisions salvation as something it is not. And because same-sex marriage contradicts the church’s understanding of salvation, specifically of marriage as restoration of the divine image in nuptial humanity, it is a grave heresy” (Guroian, The Orthodox Reality, 135–36).
84. Bouyer, The Seat of Wisdom, 199.
85. For discussion see Fagerberg, Consecrating the World, 83.
Chapter 1
God and His People
As I have emphasized, behind the creation of the cosmos stands God’s purpose to accomplish the wondrous marriage of God and his people. Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik tells the story that when he was a boy, his Rabbi told him, “the Almighty waits for mankind to appear and kneel before Him, recognize His kingdom and kingship, and give him the crown. This great event of coronation will occur at some point in the future; we do not know when and how. . . . Then the whole world will find its redemption.”86 This crowning of God as King is not merely a case of inferiors (humans) recognizing their true superior (God). Rather, it will be the consummation of an intense and ages-long romance instigated by God, fulfilling the human person’s deepest yearnings for communion with God (and each other). As Soloveitchik puts it, “There is a romance between man and God. Man has an uncontrollable, powerful longing, an invisible craving and desire to unite with God, to be close to Him, to submerge in Him.”87
But is this desire for intimacy with God actually a good thing for human beings? If the graced purpose of creation is the marriage of God and humankind—and Soloveitchik suggests that such profound intimacy does indeed constitute the original purpose, although he does not use the term “marriage”88—is the pursuit of this purpose something that humans should desire? In a rather flippant manner, Hans Küng has called into question