Logo

Mind the gap: Teaching doesn’t meet gay Catholics in the pews

Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Mind the gap: Teaching doesn’t meet gay Catholics in the pews
Which path do we choose when the twain of experience and church teaching don’t meet?

Over three decades of Mass-going, I've explored pretty much every avenue of distraction to make the time pass: pestering my brothers, making faces at buddies who were serving, and, in my adult years, reading the bulletin. I've found all but the last to earn me trouble, but I think I've found a new and completely respectable remedy to my wandering attention: A beautiful brown-eyed girl named Isa.

With no kids of my own, I admit to being an occasional baby-thief-did I mention Isa is 11 months old?-and Isa's parents are happy to let me have her for as long as I can handle her. There's only one sticking point: To borrow the title of a controversial children's book, Isa has two mommies.

I realize some might be surprised to hear of a family like Isa's at a Catholic church, or even troubled by their presence. After all, both the Vatican and the U.S. bishops have been unequivocal in their rejection of same-sex relationships and parenting. The U.S. bishops put it plainly in their November 2009 pastoral letter on marriage: "The legal recognition of same-sex unions poses a multifaceted threat to the very fabric of society." Vatican documents have argued that placing children for adoption with same-sex couples is to commit a kind of violence against those children.

Such language is, I'm sure, hard on Isa's Catholic parents, trying as they are to raise a child as a committed couple. I know it is hard on the parents of gay and lesbian Catholics: I'll never forget the father who, at a conference on the church and homosexuality, expressed to the two retired bishops in attendance both grief and outrage that his partnered lesbian daughter was not welcome in the church he had faithfully raised her in.

On the one hand, there is the Catholic Church's clear and consistent teaching that a homosexual orientation is an "objective disorder" and that sex between people of the same gender is "intrinsically evil," that is, can never be morally justified. That stance logically progresses to opposition to gay marriage and parenting, which is no doubt shared by many Catholics who are alarmed at attempts to change the legal definition of marriage.

On the other hand, others, myself included, hear a different story from gay and lesbian Catholics, especially when they speak of their aspirations to commitment and family life. To think of Isa's family as "a multifaceted threat" is profoundly jarring to say the least. I'm sure I'm not the only Catholic who feels stuck between the teaching of the church and my own experience, though Catholics are certainly not free to dismiss the former just because it contradicts the latter.

At the same time the profound disconnect between the experience of conscientious baptized people and church teaching should concern all of us. The wider the chasm, the greater the danger that people will simply reject church teaching as out of touch, not only undermining its authority on matters of sexuality but also on other pressing moral issues. One need only consider the nearly complete divergence between the church's teaching on birth control and the decisions of Catholic married couples to find a case in point.

In its Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, the Second Vatican Council proclaimed that "the joys and the hopes, the griefs and the anxieties of the people of this age...are the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties of the followers of Christ." That aspiration must extend to the gay and lesbian members of Christ's body, even and perhaps especially when the distance between church teaching and their lives is great.

How we share those joys and hopes, griefs and anxieties, is an open question, but I see no danger in bishops sitting down with gay and lesbian Catholics to speak about these issues. A meeting of the minds may be unlikely, but a meeting of hearts isn't out of the question. The first law of the gospel, after all, is charity, and it is charity that has often been a casualty in the church's debate about homosexuality.

As for me, I can only say that my experience of the "catholic," or universal, dimension of the church would be profoundly diminished if Isa's family wasn't a part of my Sunday assembly. Though life in Christ's body is not always neat or easy, sticking together makes us, or so I hope, a fuller sign to the world of the love God extends to all people. 

Bryan Cones is managing editor of U.S. Catholic. This article appeared in the January 2010 issue (Vol. 75, No. 01, pg. 8) of U.S. Catholic magazine.

Comments (58)

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Bible

You all should check out Daniel Helminiak's "What the Bible Really Says about Homosexuality."

Lost faith

"The sarcastic "bacon-wrapped" commenters have either completely lost the Faith, or at best misunderstand what infallible means."

Posted by David Phillips, the above quote really got me thinking...

I've been a lay minister more than half my life. Having served in parishes and a campus ministry and earned a certificate in ministry, I can say that yes, I'm losing faith.

When we argue over sexual orientation, we neglect the very thing Jesus asked of us: Love our neighbors as ourselves. We forget that the last commandment of Christ was to "love one another as I have loved you." The accusations of left & right, against people's orientation being Biblically-founded, and "clear-cut" Scripture references make me question why anyone would stay.

The church Christ formed is INCLUSIVE. The second reading this week reminds me that we need every person and the gifts they bring. We need those who doubt, question, and challenge, just as much as those who pray, pay, and obey.

I don't know if Paul was a zealot, gay, or on fire...I never meet him in person. All we have are the letters ascribed to him. What I do know is that history has shown us that more writers than in the Canon wrote about Jesus, and that a lot of those show even more sides of him. We don't know exactly what would be said by Jesus on the matter--that's the beauty of mystery.

Eminem Relapse Refill Fan's picture

Reply to lost faith

Jesus' love and mercy are infinite and endless for all of us.  We are all included in His Sacred Heart.  So, Our Lord is all-inclusive in this sense.

But Jesus also said "I am the Truth."  The Church cannot be so inclusive to approve of both truth and error, truth and falsehood, truth and lies.  The Church has to teach the Truth, but must also do so with charity.  We as Catholics have to do the same.

We should love everyone and not judge anyone.  But we can't sit by and say, "OK, some members of the Church believe in transubstantiation, some don't...and that's OK."  The Church cannot simply say, every believer believe anything for himself/herself.  (e.g.  "Don't believe in the Assumption?  We'll include you.  Don't believe that Christ is God?  No problem.  Think there are millions of gods?  It's ok."   You can hopefully see the madness this kind of "inclusiveness" leads to.)

When it comes to principles and ideas, I think we should dialogue and even argue with charity.  We should not try to gloss over clear-cut Scripture passages that don't appeal to our modern tastes.   But you're right, we must also never forget to love our neighbor. 

Part 2?

Bryan-
I hope you do a follow-up essay. I share your struggles, and I am looking forward to how-or if-you find a resolution. I'm interested to know how you go about it-what you read, who you talk with...please don't leave us hanging...

Great article

Wonderful article. His Grace Anthony Meagher, the recently deceased Archbishop of Kingston, Ontario, made it his goal to speak out constantly and consistently about the need for the Church to make gays and lesbians more welcome. He expressly forbid the use of the catechism language 'intrinsically disordered' from use within the Catholic schools in his archdiocese. He didn't offer a solution, but recognized and acknowledged the problem of advocating Jesus' call to love our neighbour with some catechism teachings on homosexuality. In the final analysis, Jesus' words deserve more weight than Paul's. And Jesus wouldn't have turned anyone away.

Eminem Relapse Refill Fan's picture

Reply to Catherine

Jesus and St Paul could not contradict each other.  Paul was Jesus' blessed Apostle that He personally appeared to and chose.

Jesus would not have turned anyone away, but He also would not have told someone that something wrong is okay.  He didn't say to the sick, "remain sick."  He healed the sick.  He didn't say to the prostitutes and sinners, "keep doing what you're doing."  He did sit down and eat with them, He loved them, but He also called them to something better. 

If a bishop forbade the use of the words "intrinsically disordered" I believe that he was very wrong to do so.

We all have various disorders, problems and sins.  Jesus loves us no matter what, but we shouldn't call good that which is not good. 

 

Contradiction???

I have to take issue with that comment about Jesus and Paul being of the same mind. Please remember a simple fact: JESUS was the son of God. PAUL was a human and a religious zealot, and because he was human, fallible in his thoughts like any other human.

Please, David, remember that not everything attributed to Paul is necessarily from him directly. In the time many of the Bible's texts were written, attributing texts to a spiritual leader was commonplace. So historically speaking, it's inaccurate to presume he wrote every word that we have now--especially those translated into other languages, like English.

As for the bishop in Ontario, my kudos! He's keeping in line with the findings of our scientific understanding, which removed homosexuality from its DSM-IV in the 1970s, THE source of what is considered disordered behavior.

Jesus and Paul

Matt,

I believe you have posted before writing off Paul as a zealot. Gee, how convenient to write off most of the New Testament and proclaim yourself the arbiter of truth.

You made a point that the words of Jesus and more important than the words of Paul. The same thing you pointed about the words of Paul in the Bible is true for the words of Jesus, they were written by someone else. Maybe scripture writers got Jesus's words wrong, too. So let's just throw away the entire Bible and proclaim Mat to the arbiter of the moral word.

Arbiter

David, it isn't Mat that's said Paul was a zealot; it's a common understanding of Scripture scholarship. Must be nice to think so clearly in black-and-white as you do, rather than seeing the world God created, which is in full and living color.

The college professor said so!

I'd be hesistent to read the Bible through the lens of college professors.

I've read "Jesus Seminar" professors who claim "We know Jesus was a Drunk" based upon Matt 11:19. I'm sophisticated enough to say that passage is reasonable evidence to a detached observer that possibly Jesus drank too much, but you have to be biased to say it is conclusive evidence. Furthermore, the bias is extreme as these professors would never call anyone else of being a "drunk" but would use a politically correct sensitive euphamism.

So when you write-off more than half of the new testatment based upon college professors calling Paul a zealot, I'm not impressed unless you reject the entire Bible.

There was no question in the Jewish community about the sinfulness of homosexual relations, so a reasonable person would not expect Jesus to preach about homosexuality to his Jewish audience. Making the argument there is no written record of Jesus talking about hosexuality means that Jesus was cool with same-sex marriage is a baseless.

The Jews and subsequently Christians were unique in their eras of their rejection of homosexual relations and you believe rejection of homosexual relations is hatred. So why would you accept the religious traditions that was uniquely hateful? Have some integrity and just reject Judaism and Christianity rather than lie by claiming the Bible doesn't reject homosexual relations and hide behind college professors.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comments are limited to a maximum of 1500 characters.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Filtered words will be replaced with the filtered version of the word.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
Answer this question to prove you are a human visitor and prevent automated spam submissions.