Homosexuality and the Church. For some Catholics it’s so easy. To those who happily take their cues straight from the Curia, it’s intrinsically disordered, an abomination and just plain bad. To the so-called cafeteria Catholics who reject them outright, it’s natural and perfectly respectable.
But responses to a poll -- Pew, Gallup, or whatever -- can’t come near to telling the whole story. Among the nominally obedient, I can’t be the only one who toes the official line only grudgingly, the way one tolerates a secure but dead-end job, or a dull but willing significant other. It’ll do all right for now. But wouldn’t it be nice if...if...
If what? That's the thing about arrangements that feel flawed but are essentially stable: filling in the "if" clause feels like courting danger. Much safer to zero in on its good points. (I get to wear jeans on Fridays. She lets me drink.) So it is with me and Church doctrine on this point. Fortunately, the bright spots aren’t all that hard to pick out. After declaring that homosexual acts represent a form of "grave depravity" that is "contrary to the natural law," the Catechism goes on to state:
The number of men and women with deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every unjust form of discrimination against them should be avoided.
Lots of good stuff here. Recognizing that gay people make up a not-negligible part of the population puts us miles ahead of researchers from socially conservative think tanks, who earn their keep arguing that no one has ever been truly gay except Loeb, Leopold and Liberace. Conceding that homosexual tendencies are deep-seated definitely separates us from the evangelical Protestants who insist that gay can be prayed, or married, away
On paper, the parts about respect, compassion and sensitivity also look good. But as with all words that refer to abstract qualities, their concrete definition is left to the person with the final oversight. This particular buck, it hardly needs saying, stops with Pope Benedict. Without actually refuting the imperative to behave with respect, compassion or sensitivity, he has qualified it with so many demands to the contrary that it must be exceedingly difficult for anyone in a position of pastoral authority to employ their common-sense definitions where gays are concerned.
In Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, a 1986 document issued through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the future pope begins by defining same-sex attraction as "a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil." Based on this definition, he adds, in Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons, that the rights to work and housing are not, in the case of gays, absolute. Limiting these rights, he declares, "is not only licit, but obligatory." In the same document, he predicts that laws protecting gays from discrimination will "have a negative impact on the faith and society."
According to Christ‘s vicar, then, the condition of being gay isn’t a sin of which one can properly repent and be forgiven. Nor is it an illness; kindness toward gays is not a corporal work of mercy. Instead, it’s an inclination toward evil so potentially dangerous that it justifies a kind of quarantining.
To be fair, in Some Considerations, His future Holiness does add that violence and malicious speech against gays are "deplorable," and urges pastors to condemn them whenever they occur. But in the context of his other statements, this is rather cold comfort. Being lynched certainly offends an individual’s dignity more than being refused a job, a promotion or a lease. However, in a society where such refusals are licit and obligatory, it is a much less likely offense. Condemning the big and improbable while urging the smaller but probable suggests a certain unconcern for the larger picture.
But there is a but to all this, and it’s exactly the sort of but that keeps people from walking out on the job or the partner when the yoke begins to chafe. Unequivocally gay-affirming churches have a nasty habit of imploding. The best case in point is the Episcopal Church (United States). In 2003, Episcopal bishops elected V. Gene Robinson, an openly gay man, to the diocese of New Hampshire. Since then, four dioceses have voted themselves out of ECUSA and into the Anglican Communion of the Southern Cone. Approximately 100,000 other disgruntled Episcopalians have formed the Anglican Church of North America. Given ECUSA’s recent decision to permit bishops to bless same-sex unions, the process of schism is almost certain to continue and accelerate.
Nor do those religions with liberal policies regarding same-sex attraction and relations have much luck when it comes to picking up new members from among those who describe their own views as liberal. Over the past two decades, as ECUSA‘s positions on homosexuality have become more progressive, her numbers have stagnated.. The Pew Research Center reports that the fastest-growing group of former Christians now describes itself as "unaffiliated." Apparently, when people decide they don’t like their church’s teachings, they don’t bother to find a new church whose doctrines suit them better. Instead, they quit church altogether.
Before anyone misunderstands me, I am not suggesting the Church cling to its conservative social positions as a marketing ploy. I cite these numbers only because they point to a paradox that defines many twenty-first century people who choose to belong to a medieval institution. The paradox is this: even though a certain type of modern (or postmodern) Catholic cannot quite believe what the Church teaches -- or may agonize over exactly why or in what sense it could be true -- he still takes comfort in knowing it’s there to be believed. Change those teachings too fast or too drastically, or in too agreeable a direction, and such a person will sense the bow toward expediency and lose interest.
Though our twenty-first century consciences tell us that gay relationships are harmless or healthy, or even necessary for the emotional well-being of gay people, the fact remains that revealed Scripture and Church tradition have shown an undeniable consistency in arguing otherwise. So far, attempts by Catholic theologians to put a gay-friendly gloss on St. Paul’s writings, though admirably well-intended, have smacked of both slickness and desperation. The Episcopalian approach, to reinterpret all of Scripture to the point where nothing means what it appears to mean, makes the churchgoer rack his brains for more profitable ways to spend his Sundays.
So what’s left for the ambivalent Catholic who finds blind belief impossible and utter disbelief unappetizing? Why mince words? It forces us to assume the role of sneaks, hoping no one will probe our consciences too deeply. It forces those of us who are not gay into a sort of cowardice, as we silently assent to see others shoulder a cross that we would not readily bear ourselves. In our darkest moments, it turns us into bookies, handicapping the timing and outcome of the next conclave, in the hope that doctrine’s punitive Benedictine edge will not outlast Pope Benedict himself.
Strangest of all, it makes us grasp at the hope that this thing, this mysterious self-interest that drives us to perform all sorts of queasy mental and moral gymnastics, might, in the end, count as a kind of faith.
Comments
Very good article, Max. I think it's both interesting and telling that churches that worry about whether or not to admit members of the LGBT community as they are, instead of limiting their rights and circumstances are more interested in numbers and money. Indeed, there are numerous gay-friendly churches that concentrate less on size and more on social impact, including my own, the Liberal Catholic Church International (LCCI), as well as the Society of Friends (better known as Quakers).
When people rely on less restrictive values of "success" by concentrating on what Jesus taught, including loving everyone unconditionally, accepting people as they are becomes much easier.
Glad you enjoyed the article, Debbie. I must have been insufficiently clear on one point, though: for me, the Catholic Church gains its legitimacy not by its size but by its continuity. Get all schismatic, ignore the whole apostolic succession thing, and...game over, as far as I'm concerned.
PS: What are you doing up at this miserable hour? Or am I picking up readers in the Eastern Standard Time Zone.
For you, Max, becoming a Catholic priest would be like buying a very nice pair of shoes that don't fit exactly right, and having to wear those shoes for awhile before the pain becomes unbearable, but too late to return those shoes to the store.
Well, I tried to give your article a thorough read, but in truth, I scanned it. Why? Because your church and christ's vicar have become irrelevant to me. They have worked very hard to become meaningless, and have achieved a high level of success. I am gay, and therefore "intrinsically disordered." So, what other important news does christ's vicar have to impart? He would like me to know that my homosexuality is not a sin. It's acting on those urges that's the sin. He would like me to be celibate (and unhappy) for my whole life. Enjoy the urges, he tells me, but never satisfy them. Never love.
Hence the church's irrelevancy. It's a silly proposition, and expounding on it, or even exploring it, even as eloquently as you've done, is a waste of words. Write something else. Go become a novelist. Just don't think that you know anything about what you're writing now, because as a straight man, you have no idea, believe me.
Perfect! Thank you, Max.
The complete and utter irrelevancy of the Catholic Church in Europe due to it's arcane beliefs with regards to a host of issues including gays should be examined. This also applies to much of educated America. Why is it that the Bible is infallible in it's hatred towards gays and not on issues that might impact the masses such as, dare I say heterosexuals (divorce, stoning, eating shelfish, slavery). By accepting the "beliefs" of the Church, you are in fact picking and choosing. Homosexuality is throughout nature; hence, it is NATURAL. I guess studies and science on this issue have no relevancy for the author. Since when was one required to check their brain upon entering a church? I was made in God's image and will fight until my death for the rights of my gay brothers and sisters and the gay children forced to hear such ignorance in the alleged name of "God". Ignorance that leads to dehumanization, hatred and ultimately violence.
There seems to be this sheepish adherence to a double standard for Gay and Straight people. If you're Straight, it's all so wonderful to be able to find a compatible person of the opposite sex, court and get engaged and marry and live happily ever after. But if you're Gay, all of that is completely out of the question. Don't even bother trying to find a compatible person. Lesbians are Gay men are precluded from any hope for romance or commitment. Gay people are simply told: "Gosh, sorry about that. You make us uncomfortable; acknowledging your existence means we might have to revise what we’ve been teaching all these years - meaning, Whoops! No infallible Magisterium or 'literal' Bible ... so you’ll just have to sacrifice your life and any hope of finding somebody to love. Tough luck, kid. God said it, I don't necessarily understand it, but there it is."
I wish more Christians would at least TRY to wrap their minds around why this makes so little sense to Gay people.
Amazing. If I rewrote the whole Seven-Storey Mountain, my mother might be nice enough to respond. On the other hand, if I change it to the Seven-Storey GAY Mountain, I get fifty thousand hits and a book deal.
Punditry is a mug's game. Don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise.
Okay, now for some serious responses.
Dave: Not exactly. It's more like all the other styles of shoe either look ridiculous, or don't even have soles.
Tim: That last line got me. You're right: I don't know what it's like. I really don't. I try to use my writer's powers of imaginative sympathy, but they go only so far.
Paul: I need more readers like you.
Chuck and Thomas: Your points deserve a longer response than I can come up with on the spot. Be patient, though; I'll get to you.
Thomas: You must know the Church's answers to those questions you raised, so I'll spare the dead horse a beating and not recite them. About dehumanization. hatred and violence -- well, the Church has stated her opposition to them, at least on paper. But I'll agree that many self-appointed culture warriors tend to subvert those good intentions by making same-sex relations into the Tony Montana of sins, i.e., the ones people can point at and say, "That's the bad guy."
Chuck: This part I do get. Singlehood or nothing sounds like a terribly raw deal. Just remember that things aren't quite as much fun on this side as you might imagine. If straight people fall in love, it had BETTER be for happily ever after -- or else.
This may be TMI, but I'll add thaht I'm choosing to live chastely, because, being a frelance writer of uncertain prospects, I'm presently unable to support a family.
Still, I thank you gentlemen for responding. This is quite an education for me.
DEAR MAX:
Thanks for at least trying to be diplomatic about this. I'm reminded of a Baptist in Texas who recently wrote, "I can't reconcile how someone could feel he or she was born with strong homosexual feelings, love Christ and yet take on the limitations of what seem to me to be straightforward biblical teachings. That's agonizing, and I don't really understand it."
And this is the weird thing: "Straighforward biblical teachings" should at least be understandable to the average person. So often I hear it said, "OUR ways are not GOD's ways," as if God was some sort of inscrutable alien being.
Consider The Golden Rule: We do unto others as we would have them do unto use. Put all the religious dogma and ritual aside, and this is what our laws boil down to. We don't lie, kill, steal, commit adultery, etc. because we would not want to be victimized in the same fashion. So I shake my head when someone basically says, "Love & commitment are good for ME but not for THEE."
Chuck: Thank you for being gracious enough to thank me for at least trying. When I was writing this piece, I was patting myself on the back for being so nuanced and sensitive. But, as Tim pointed out, I don't really have a dog in the fight. People like you, Tim and Thomas, who actually are affected by these things, aren't going to care about the nuances. You're going to look, very sensibly,for the bottom line.
One point I should have addressed but didn't was the difficulty of permanent singlehood. For the most part, physical and emotional intimacy go together. Rule out the first, and you're looking at a life where all human contact is more or less superficial. For many people, that's a good recipe for madness.
In fact, I might make that into a follow-up column. Thanks for the idea.
well, i always get suspicious when someone starts to tell me that the bible means exactly what it says ... In what version and translation ? in which language ? and with what cultural and social background. we are about 2000 years removed from most of it and that makes a TREMENDOUS difference. free will is tricky; but i demand the allowance that i can have an informed and educated interpretation which may differ significantly from the current stance of the current church leaders. i am SO glad i was not around in the Pay, Pray and Obey era ... altho it was certainly a simpler time ...
You join with numerous Vatican spokesmen in stating that "revealed Scripture and Church tradition have shown an undeniable consistency in arguing otherwise". This is demonstrably untrue, as both have been frequently denied: increasingly so by modern scholars.
What cannot be denied, is that official church positions on a great many things, including such matters as the authority of the Pope and the laity, have changed dramatically over 200 years. (Not that the Vatican like to publicise this).
Nor does the Vatican like to publicise the many openly homosexual men in Church history who were consecrated bishops (notably John of Orleans in 1098, lover of archbishop Ralph of Tours), nor the number of gay men and women among the recognised saints - nor the members of the modern Curia who are known by Vatican journalists to have regular boyfriends .
Included
Your yearning for "continuity," although understandable in our dangerous, unstable world, seems to me to run counter to reality. If we've learned anything about nature, it's that things change -- evolve, if you will -- rather than stay static, including our religious beliefs. The modern concept of "homosexuality" didn't even exist in the centuries when the Bible was edited and put together by various committees. Kinsey wasn't around to explain to St. Paul that sexual preference is a spectrum. Why rely on interpretations that are unscientific and hundreds of years out of date? The church has managed to move beyond its condoning of slavery, anti-Semitism and burning of witches. How many centuries do LGBT people have to wait until the right Pope comes around to suddenly "get it?"
Well written piece, Max, and hey from VA. You deftly covered a lot of what most of us would call very touchy ground with this topic. I do agree with the Catechism in this area and I’m glad you pointed out the part about sensitivity & compassion. I can’t ever believe being a schmuck is a good evangelical approach. Proclaiming on the rooftops to our gay friends & family -- “Hey, disordered person. Let me tell you about Jesus and His Cross...” -- is never going to bear good fruit. Charity is that key ingredient in evangelism, but the truth part cannot be left out either. Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth), the title of the Holy Father’s most recent encyclical comes to mind.
By the way, I think we are all a bit disordered. That concupiscence can be a real b-word!
One must remember that the Church is in the world and not of the world. The Church will never change Her teachings regarding Faith and Morals. We never hear of suffering anymore. In our fallen world there is much suffering. Are we seeking Heaven or is our happiness tied up in this world? I read all of the comments and it appears that many are seeking their happiness here - and are not willing to "suffer" as Christ did - taking up their cross and walking with Jesus on a road that will lead to ultimate satisfaction.
Isn't it a bit odd that the Diocese of Phoenix is laying people off, cutting back on programs, and implementing a furlough...yet still has the funds for a $50,000 donation to a political campaign in Maine? (The largest Diocesan contribution to this particular campaign.)
Google "Catholic Church contributions to antigay campaign in Maine"
Is this where our Catholic Development Appeal (CDA) donations are going? And a portion of our plate collections? How many hungry people in Phoenix could have been fed with that money?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!