Liberals should stick to the point in debate on non-marital relationships

NORMALLY, it’s the other way around. You see the words ‘archbishop’, ‘hurt’ and ‘remark’ and you can join the dots. Archbishop Connell must have spoken his mind again. Perhaps he’s made a comment on inter-communion or marriage, or some other touchy subject. The Irish Times is offended. Liberal theologians are lamenting. Outraged callers are ringing Liveline.

Imagine my surprise then, on opening Monday's newspaper to discover the world has turned upside down. The same words as in the old days: 'Archbishop...hurt... remark'. But this time Dr Diarmuid Martin, the man who will succeed Cardinal Connell as Archbishop of Dublin, was the wounded party.

"It would not be honest of me speaking here today," he told a Church of Ireland congregation, "not to refer to a certain hurt that I felt in these days by words attributed in the press to a Church of Ireland figure which somehow gave the impression that those who hold different theological positions to the author on the subject of homosexuality were perhaps less sincere, even fundamentalist, or were associated with having been 'devious' on other serious issues."

My first reaction on reading these words was to regret the mention of 'hurt'. In past controversies involving Archbishop Connell, this word was a good indicator that nasty things were about to happen. Some spokesman from the Church of Ireland would say he was feeling hurt. This would trigger a reaction in the Irish Times and RTÉ, the way a bugle call says 'teatime' to a pack of hounds, and the resulting vilification of Cardinal Connell made the Salem witch trials look like the Waltons.

By the time the controversy died down, one thing was certain: nobody had reflected on the other side's position. I sometimes wondered if that was the point of the outrage.

Archbishop Martin's upset is over certain comments by Archdeacon Gordon Linney, the Church of Ireland's point man on social and moral issues, on the subject of homosexuality and same-sex marriages.

"The Roman Catholic tradition, along with Protestant fundamentalism, has taken a very strong and definite stand," Archdeacon Linney told a meeting last week.

"My own Anglican Communion struggles and suffers. But I have to ask how people who are so certain about homosexuality being evil could have been so indifferent and even devious when it came to facing up to the issue of child abuse."

Reading this stuff, I realise that Archbishop Martin put Christian charity above verbal clarity. 'Hurt' may describe his reaction. But he might correctly have used 'vile', 'irresponsible' and 'illogical' in response to Archdeacon Linney's actual words.

The archdeacon must know that these words, however vague, will be interpreted by many as an accusation against the Catholic Church, and specifically its leaders. And the accusation is very serious. It's that church people who were traditionalists on homosexual rights were indifferent to the suffering of abused children, even devious about it.

I can think of only a few church leaders who have taken the trouble to reiterate the church's teaching on homosexuality (homosexual people good, homosexual acts bad) and who have also been in the news over their handling of abuse cases. Some of these people have been criticised over inadequacies in their approach. But the charge that they were indifferent or devious has never been credibly made. In the absence of mind-reading technology, it is impossible to prove. And no Christian, much less the spokesperson on moral issues for a mainstream church, should level it.

The suggestion seems to be that certain people who think homosexual acts as sinful have poor moral judgement anyway, since they are indifferent to the suffering of abused children.

This is a highly ad hominem, illogical argument. It requires, first of all, some evidence that such people exist. Even then, it is no substitute for proper argument about the rights and wrongs of homosexual acts, and the obligations of civil society to homosexual people.

Archdeacon Linney, however, continues with the false reasoning: "How come so many people are so exercised about the gay issue and indifferent to homelessness and deprivation in our own city?" he asks.

But, again, who are these people he speaks of? And why does it matter? Aren't there plenty of church people, who hold traditionalist views on homosexual acts, working to combat homelessness and deprivation? And aren't there loads of liberals who do nothing about homelessness, deprivation, paramilitary violence, Aids victims, greedy multinationals or any of the other issues the archdeacon raises?

THE archdeacon is not alone in his confusion. His own Anglican Church is on the point of schism since it appointed Canon Gene Robinson, an openly homosexual man, as the Bishop of New Hampshire. The USA is bitterly divided on the rights of homosexuals. At the UN there is consternation over the decision of Secretary-General Kofi Annan to recognise same-sex unions for the purpose of expanded family benefits. And in Ireland, the chief executive of the Equality Authority says an amendment to the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous) Provisions Bill will discriminate against same-sex couples regarding a range of non-statutory schemes such as free travel.

What is clear is that many homosexual people want recognition. Some want civil unions, or domestic partnerships just enough to avail of social welfare benefits, pension entitlements and a range of other rights currently enjoyed by married couples. Others go further and argue that homosexual marriage could provide role models for young homosexual people, many of whom lapse into short-term relationships and insecurity. There is some logic to this argument. Stable unions are always a good idea. They facilitate personal growth. They discourage selfish behaviour, emotional heartbreak and the spread of disease.

But there are counter-arguments too. Some people believe that, regardless of sexual orientation, homosexuality should not be seen as an equally valid lifestyle choice. On that view, homosexual behaviour should be confined to the private sphere.

Others argue that the state only recognises marriage at all because it has an interest in procreation and wants a stable environment for the rearing of children. If the state must recognise marriage of same-sex couples, simply because they love each other, on what basis can it deny marriage to a group of three men and two women, for example, or polygamous relationships, or sterile siblings for that matter? And what of same-sex couples who want children? Will state recognition of their unions give impetus to the demand for adoption rights, for sperm and egg donations, even financial transactions instead of donation? And how would this square with the right of a child to a father and mother where possible?

Perhaps the answer is to ensure that heterosexual marriage continues to enjoy primacy as the ideal state for the rearing of children and to establish a category of domestic partnership for other situations for example, siblings, same-sex couples, dependent relatives where people qualify for rights such as inheritance or free travel where appropriate. This would allow the state to remain neutral on the rights and wrongs of homosexual partnerships while allowing people to avail of benefits.

What we do not need is a polarisation of this debate between supposed liberals who want civil rights and supposed conservatives whose only arguments are biblical. This is not a debate between compassionate people and fundamentalists. Archdeacon Linney should correct his script.