It was announced Monday that President Henry B. Eyring would be attending “The Complementarity of Man and Woman: An International Colloquium” to be held in the Vatican 17-19 November. From the colloquium website, this is “a gathering of leaders and scholars from many religions across the globe, to examine and propose anew the beauty of the relationship between the man and the woman, in order to support and reinvigorate marriage and family life for the flourishing of human society” with the aim that it serve as “a catalyst for creative language and projects, as well as for global solidarity, in the work
of strengthening the nuptial relationship, both for the good of the spouses themselves and for the good of all who depend upon them.”
The colloquium is taking place against the background of the 2014-2015 Synods of Bishops on the Family, and follows the October 2014 Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, a report of which can be found here.
The sponsors of the colloquium are “the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and co-sponsored by the Pontifical Council for the Family, the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, and the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of Christian Unity.” The list of participants looks very interesting. A variety of world religions are represented. There are those with an academic background in religion and theology as well as those with qualifications in law, sociology or politics. Both scholars and those working with families at the grass-roots are represented. Speakers hail from all areas of the globe. Seven are women.
The programme for the colloquium is a layout unfamiliar to me, consisting as it does of several main presentations (with a speaker and/or film), most followed by witnesses, presumably giving their view or experience of the subject addressed by the main presentation. Hopefully this will provide some breadth, and diversity. President Eyring is listed as a witness during the first topic on Tuesday afternoon, where the topic appears to be “Challenge and Hope for a New Generation”, that’s the film title anyway. The presenter is listed as Rev. Dr. Richard D. Warren, Senior Pastor of Saddleback Church. It looks like President Eyring will get 15 minutes.
Other topics covered include: The Family – Still the Basic Unit of Society; The Sacramentality of Human Love According to Saint John Paul II; Understanding Man and Woman; The Power of Marriage Against Hardship; Marriage, Culture and Civil Society.
At the end of the final session, it appears that there will be presented a Declaration on Marriage.
I have mixed feelings. The very title of the colloquium makes me jittery. Not the idea that individual spouses complement eachother in a partnership, so much as “man” complementing “woman”, and what that has often meant in terms of gender stereotyping. I have to think we need to move beyond stereotypes if we’re going to “support and reinvigorate marriage and family life for the flourishing of human society”. I can hope the colloquium will address this, when it comes to actual presentations and witnesses, though the first video trailer had me cringing.
I’m not the only one wanting to avoid stereotypes. This year the primary children have had “Families are Forever” as their annual theme. One of the set songs in particular has a problematic couple of verses, modified here. My ward primary had their presentation recently, and skipped those verses altogether. I shouldn’t have been surprised, because whilst the primary presidency are very committed, diligent members, and all are currently married, they have also all experienced divorce, in some cases twice. Their families look very different to the traditional one.
I do think it’s a good thing to get those from different faiths, perspectives and experiences together to talk about families, and the practical things that might help. That it is sponsored by a religion, that while it is clearly concerned about the well-being and healthy functioning of families, also has a place for unmarried folk, makes me think there’s not going to be the extremes of rhetoric about marriage and family we might hear at church. I hope we’ll get to see what they all say. I am very interested to see what the declaration will look like, and how it compares to our proclamation.
I wondered what President Eyring might have to say. Recent changes to the BYU/CES Institute religion curriculum have had some discussion on the blogs, and have seen the introduction of a compulsory course on the family. How is that’s going to play out outside BYU, say in Britain, where typically only the core courses are taken, one a year? Commenters seem to be scratching their heads over a semester on the family proclamation. I’m thinking a year might drive folk to despair. Still, it’s a change that has been made presumably with hope for the upcoming generation in mind. I took a look at some of Pres Eyring’s recent conference addresses that appeared to have some relevance to the colloquium subject: “Daughters in the Covenant” (April 2014), “The Priesthood Man” (April 2014) and “Families under Covenant” (April 2012). They’re generally hopeful addresses given either at the General Women’s Meeting (now General Women’s Session) or the Priesthood Session. The overall message of each is excellent, but they are not without stereotype. In the first: “you surely felt the love of the Savior and a greater commitment to nurture others for Him. I can say “surely” because those feelings are placed deep in the hearts of all of Heavenly Father’s daughters. That is part of your divine heritage from Him.” So, if you’re a woman to whom that doesn’t come naturally what then? And in the third, quoting President Benson: “children need to know and feel they are loved, wanted, and appreciated. They need to be assured of that often. Obviously, this is a role parents should fill, and most often the mother can do it best.” What is this saying to father’s – it’s the priesthood meeting – about showing love to their children? Also, a testimony of priesthood keys is placed ahead of wife and family in importance (though stated as benefiting wife and family) in that last.
- What are your hopes and feelings for the colloquium?
- Do you think it’s a good thing, or not, and why?
- What do you make of the topics?
- What do you see as the challenges and hopes for a new generation?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
What might happen if Pres. Eyring mistakenly went to Jerusalem…
It’s been twenty years and Jon Lovitz as “The Critic” STILL nails it!
Hopefully the world will come to realize that the gold standard is marriage between one man and one woman.
Hopefully there is a Platinum Standard the church should strive for.
My fear is joining up with the other Christian groups means the church will be pressured to compromise to a standard that only serves the majority, and not the whole body of Christ.
1. All people are born of a mother and a father.
2. This family provides love and security
3. If gay people want a family, they have to go outside the relationship
4. The POTF clearly states that the disintegration of the family will bring about the calamities foretold in the Bible.
“1. All people are born of a mother and a father.”
Not all people are raised by a mother and a father.
“2. This family provides love and security”
Wha??? Is that a rule? Like…always, that just happens?
“3.”
If a man and woman can’t have kids and go outside the relationship to adopt a child, it works out just fine.
“4. …Disintegration of the family will bring about the calamities foretold in the Bible.”
Yes, yes…I believe Florida, and New Orleans prove this. Did you hear about the one where God sends more Tornadoes to the bible belt, statistically proven?
I don’t know a lot of the individuals and organizations participating but the Catholic Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is the equivalent of the Strengthening the Membership Committee which is to say, in my opinion, fairly conservative and extreme bodies. I see the President of the Southern Baptists will be represented. And Rick Warren, one of the higher profile right-wing evangelist Christian ministers. I’m wondering if they’re typical of the point of views representing or the right wing perspective to someone else’s left-wing and another group’s middle of the road.
Whatever conclusions come out of this assembly will still have to integrate into a world which has and probably will continue to be more open to the rights of all people. At least I profoundly hope so.
Finally, with respect to the Catholic contingent, their findings could well come into conflict with the more inclusive Pope. So I wonder if the outcome will lead to anything more than more conflict.
I ask that anybody who struggles with this issue go to the bishop and accept his counsel and pay no heed to the voices of this world
These are some high-level LDS and other US church leaders going. If this effort is successful, it may be repeated in a few years in NYC, SLC, Nashville or another US city.
I fully confess I still don’t know much about the background and perspectives of the participants but I have noted that out of 32 participants only 7, or fewer than 1 in 4, are women. This leads me to think that, once again, we’ll get men telling women what their roles and contributions are supposed to be.
Furthermore, at least 8 of the participants are Catholic religious which is to say people who have never lived a married life. Along with the fact that this colloquium was called by Catholics and will be held in the Vatican, this strikes me as an indication that the theoretical rather than the practical will get heavy rotation.
Thanks for the comments all.
alice, #6 “I’m wondering if they’re typical of the point of views representing or the right wing perspective to someone else’s left-wing and another group’s middle of the road.”
and #9 “at least 8 of the participants are Catholic religious which is to say people who have never lived a married life. Along with the fact that this colloquium was called by Catholics and will be held in the Vatican, this strikes me as an indication that the theoretical rather than the practical will get heavy rotation.”
The colloquium is organised by departments in the Vatican, so they will feature heavily on the participant side, and I imagine they were responsible for drawing up the programme, so not a lot of practical experience with marriage, I’d assume. Perhaps this is one reason why they’re holding it, to get the differing perspectives. Initially, like you, looking at the participant list, I did feel it was heavily weighted on the Catholic side, however, looking at the programme it appears that they are mainly introducing the sessions, which would be expected, rather than presenting and witnessing. That puts me on the side of hope for this.
I have some small familiarity with the names of most of those attending from Britain (Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks, Bishop Michael Nazir’ Ali, Rt. Rev. Nicholas Thomas Wright but not Dr. Harshad N. Sanghrajka). Sacks opposed gay marriage legislation, and decries consumerism and materialism. Both Wright and Nazir’ Ali are have spoken out in opposition to LGBT issues and veer towards the evangelical end of the spectrum, Nazir’ Ali has spoken against designer babies, and speaks out against racism. Wright is a New Testament scholar.
The Norwegian woman is a professor of international politics, former foreign secretary for Norway, but also a Catholic convert (as a student), though married with a family.
I imagine there has been careful selection of participants, weighted towards those with views on the more conservative side.
Heber,#3 “My fear is joining up with the other Christian groups means the church will be pressured to compromise to a standard that only serves the majority, and not the whole body of Christ.”
Well, not only other Christian groups. There are also representatives who are Hindu, Jain, Muslim, Sikh and Buddhist.
I’m wondering how the declaration will be drawn up. Is it to be a collaborative effort, to which participants will be expected to agree, in which case your fears may have some small foundation. More likely, I personally think, it will be a document for the taking account of, though not necessarily agreeing with, all the views presented at the colloquium.
alice, #6 “with respect to the Catholic contingent, their findings could well come into conflict with the more inclusive Pope. So I wonder if the outcome will lead to anything more than more conflict.”
Well, this was also the case with the preceding Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. The final report was much less exciting than the interim (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404509.htm).
#11, Hedgehog…perhaps we are not so peculiar and apart from the world. I wonder if the Church sees value in being more “in the world”, and it makes me wonder how much it will influence church leaders’ opinions on issues.
Perhaps by taking winifred’s advice and going to talk to a bishop, who gets counsel and training from above, actually encourages us to pay attention to voices of the world…since they seem to be collaborating with them.
I trust the church leaders take influence from voices of the world, and then seek inspiration from the Lord with what to do with such voices.
And I plan to do that also, voices from my bishop or from the world, we should all study it out in our minds and then take it to the Lord for personal revelation on these matters.
winifred,
You do realize that those same calamities were foretold by modern prophets as the inevitable results of abandoning polygamy. The official church position in the current marriage debate can change in same way it has in the past debates. Every church leader eventually dies and can then be ignored just like we ignore Presidents Young and Taylor. Eventually the youth of the church will age into the position that can make policy and policy will change.
Thanks for your evaluation of other voices planned for this event.
Daniel
Aids is always lurking around the corner. Never takes a break.
Gay sex is deadly to the body and soul.
It’s worth considering that HIV/AIDS reached its peak in 1997 when about 3 million cases were recorded per year. More recently about 50K cases are reported each year. To put that in perspective, that is to say that the current rate of infection is less than 2% of what it once was.
Meanwhile, no doubt there are many factors in the success of limiting the spread of the disease. Education and preventive measures leap to mind. But it may not be coincidental that the regularization of gay marriages and civil unions that began around 1993 has been a contributing factor as well. In the US HIV/AIDS still seems to be highest in the population of Black & Hispanic youth and gay & bisexual men. To the extent that gay and bisexual men are able to enter long term monogamous relationships, they segregate themselves into a group that compromises fewer potential sexual partners.
Meanwhile, there is an epidemic of murder and suicide in the US and working families drop below the poverty line on a regular basis. To continue to treat sex or gay sex, specifically, as bêtes noires is just deliberate ignorance and discrimination.
Alice:
Gay sex never stops being deadly.
Speaking of things that are deadly: http://www.businessinsider.com/antigay-prejudice-and-elevated-mortality-2014-2
Hedgehog-
My apologies for allowing myself to get sucked into an off topic conversation. I’ll practice some restraint and stop engaging in a peripheral issue.
I’ll also stay tuned for any information about what light the colloquium shines on this complex and important human issue.
Heber, #13 “perhaps we are not so peculiar and apart from the world.”
Not nearly so much as we’re often led to believe, I think.
alice, #18 “and working families drop below the poverty line on a regular basis.”
I’m hoping that the effects of poverty on marriage and families will be one of the things that gets properly addressed in the colloquium. There’s no doubt in my mind there’s a detrimental effect when it comes to flourishing.
#21 Accepted. I am not infrequently guilty of the same :-).
There’s an interesting development in the Catholic world today. In an earlier note I linked to an article demonstrating the aggression of the American conservative Catholic movement that may represent the mood and objectives of this symposium. My link was to a story about the leader of that movement, Cardinal Raymond Burke of St. Louis, saying that Pope Francis had left the Catholic church leaderless.
Today’s news has this story about Cardinal Burke having been removed from the office that selects the next generation of bishops and now being removed from the Vatican’s high ecclesiastical court. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pope-francis-demotes-u-s-cardinal-raymond-burke-1.2828756
It may be that Francis still welcomes input but is firm in his objective to make the Catholic church more welcoming and does not mean to be diverted or undermined. At least it seems like something of a line in the sand to me… It could make this ecumenical convocation interesting to watch even if it may not turn out to have the authority to solidify outmoded practices that interfere with the more inclusive attitude that the Pope represents.
That’s really interesting alice. Thanks for that link.
Good post, I feel similarly.
Apologies for such a tangental aside, but I’ve been really curious about how you ended up in ‘the bloggernacle’, Hedgehog. I’m from the UK but now live in the US, and seeing Mormonism operating on both sides of the atlantic has been interesting for me. There’s a lot fewer of us lurking online, I get the feeling (makes sense, there’s fewer of us in general) but most of your comments on various LDS related things resonate with my experience of Mormonism. I’ve experienced a lot of disbelief over those things from American LDS people. I wondered if you keep your own blog or whatnot, that I might not be aware of, as I find your perspective helpful.
Best,
Thanks naomi. It’s nice to know people find my perspective helpful.
I don’t have my own blog. How did I end up here? I didn’t know the bloggernacle existed for a long while. I began exploring 2011-2012 time.
Back when I was a youth Sunday School teacher (OT) I began trawling the internet for background information, and that way discovered the Nibley archive stuff on the Maxwell Institute, and other things that were a discussion and sometimes defence against other material. So that was my introduction to the more academic side of things – reading the associated apologetics. Also there was a lot of news articles etc about Mitt Romney and the upcoming US elections, which I got into following. One of the SL newspapers, would have a this week on the bloggernacle spot (it might have been deseret news), which I’d sometimes glance over, and came to understand there were blogs out there, but I didn’t really know anything about them. Then there was the Mormon Candidate TV programme that came out, and one of my brothers sent out a link to all the family of the By Common Consent blog coverage of the programme. I think that was my first time reading a blog post. That particular brother is very TBM, and possibly regrets having done so now. He and BCC blogger RJH (also British) were at one time in the same ward. From there I slowly began to explore via the Mormon Archipelago link on the BCC site. It was really eye-opening, and confusing to begin with. Wandering through the sites as a newbie felt like drowning sometimes.
Anyway, as time passed, I came to prefer W&T, primarily because it seemed the most straight forward, all sides seemed to be represented in the comments, and I liked the variety and discussion. At the same time they did a few posts on who they were, and what the bloggernacle was, which was a big help. I started commenting a lot, and was invited to send in a guest post or two, which I did. The first went up January 2013. It went from there really.
Thanks for the response! It’s been really interesting to hear perspectives from home, having spent most of my formative adult years in the US as a transplant. I felt like pre-internet, the ‘gospel’ English LDS folk were given was almost strictly correlation, with the influence of the odd Utahn couple who would arrive as senior missionaries in the wards. It’s been really wild comparing that to perspectives from friends who grew up in Utah etc. Thanks again for humouring me with a response.