At the America website, Ty Wahlbrink, SJ, a graduate student at Fordham University, notes that 10 years have passed since Pope Francis uttered these famous words about a person's sexuality: "Who am I to judge?"
Wahlbrink provides context for that quote:
Ten years ago on the flight back from his first World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro, Pope Francis spoke these five simple words that reverberated around the world: “Who am I to judge?”. Then a relatively new pontiff, this was his comment in response to a reporter who inquired about a “gay lobby” in the Vatican. Francis went on to add that L.G.B.T.Q.+ individuals “shouldn’t be marginalized. The tendency [to homosexuality] is not the problem…they’re our brothers.”
Given the West’s dramatic increase in acceptance of L.G.B.T.Q.+ individuals, revisiting the last 10 years can ensure that the impact of these simple words is not lost to time. According to Gallup, Americans’ view of the moral permissibility of gay and lesbian relationships increased from 55 percent to 71 percent from 2012 to 2022. Moreover, Obergefell v. Hodges, granting the legal right for all Americans to civil same-sex marriages, would not be decided until 2015. The recent controversies over special Masses for Pride Month were non-issues because it was unfathomable for any parish to celebrate Pride. Lastly, Pope Benedict had written in his 2010 book Light of the World: The Pope, The Church and the Signs Of The Times that “homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation.”
I recall well Francis speaking those words. In the online circles in which I travel, those words were welcomed. If nothing else, it was difficult to imagine Benedict speaking those words. The quote seemed to signal something, although nobody knew what exactly what.
Has anything really changed in the church over the last decade for LGBTQ Catholics? At the level of church officials and clergy and what they say and write, Wahlbrink's answer seems to be, Yes and no.
Certainly, Pope Francis through various statements and actions has continued to invite L.G.B.T.Q.+ Catholics into closer relationships with the church and broader society. Most notably, Francis in a 2020 documentary voiced support for civil same-sex unions, saying that “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way [gay people] are legally covered.” More recently, the pope instructed bishops not to support criminalization laws for homosexuality, stating that a homosexual act is “not a crime. Yes, but it’s a sin.” Just a few weeks ago, Francis sent his good wishes and prayers to the Outreach LGBTQ Catholic Ministry Conference. Earlier in his papacy, he wrote in The Name of God is Mercy that he “prefer[s] that homosexuals come to confession, that they stay close to the Lord, and that we pray all together.” Francis even dined with incarcerated gay and transgender people in 2015.
Beyond the pope, the broader church has made efforts to minister to LBGTQ+ Catholics. Following the shooting at Pulse Nightclub, Fr. James Martin, SJ wrote Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity. Last month, the Vatican released the working draft of the ongoing synod’s document which calls for a new pastoral approach to queer Catholics, notably using the L.G.B.T.Q.+ acronym which the church had long avoided.
Yet, Wahbrink also notes that the line the Catholic Church has drawn regarding gay marriage hasn't been moved, or perhaps even blurred:
At the same time, the church’s teaching authority has been clear in upholding traditional teachings on marriage and family life. Following Francis’ comments supporting civil same-sex unions, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (now a dicastery) clarified that church doctrine has not changed. Some months later, the Vatican further stipulated that the church cannot bless same-sex unions.
The response of the dicastery relies on Francis’ apostolic exhortation “Amoris Laetitia” saying that “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.” In turn, God’s plan for the family is succinctly summarized in the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1601: “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring.”
Still, Wahlbrink detects a change in tone over the last decade, at least in the tone coming from the Holy See, and he insists it's significant.
In my parish in our particular corner of suburbia, I would have a difficult time pointing to any significant concrete changes. During my 30+ years in the parish, there never has been a discernible LGBTQ identity (although certainly some gay individuals have worshiped there over the years), and I haven't detected that the LGBTQ presence has changed in the last decade. As I am not gay myself, I don't walk in LGBTQ shoes, and probably am oblivious to words and signs that may register with a gay person. I suppose an LGBTQ person walking into any Catholic parish for the first time probably feels apprehensive that s/he may have walked into a hostile environment, and is alert to anything that would confirm the apprehension.
To the best of my knowledge, there are no married gay couples who worship at our parish. If there were, I am fairly certain that a segment of the parish that would freak out.
So on the whole, I haven't seen that Francis's words have had much impact at our parish.
Is your experience any different than mine?
I suspect that most of our parishes have gay and lesbian couples as they have always had, except the couples are wise enough to not advertise themselves even though Francis has encouraged them to do so. They know that their pastors and fellow parish members are not like Pope Francis on a lot of issues, e.g., few are as anticlerical as he is.
ReplyDeleteI suspect some of them have married and are open about their relationships in circles that they know are accepting. In the mental health system, a few decades back we employed a consultant for children's services who was essentially married before gay marriage was legalized. He was always honest in talking about his significant other to those of us who knew he was gay. In the facilitating the planning for children's mental health services he did not become an advocate for gay young people although many of us knew his interest in children's mental health came from his own struggles as a gay adolescent. Rather he let the many mental health professionals carry the day for mental health services for gay adolescents.
His great professionalism, his complete lack of interest in promoting gay pride, etc. combined with how similar his married life was to heterosexual married life convinced me to support gay marriage. It was all so completely human and normal, two persons sharing their lives in a caring relationship.
Some years back when San Francisco mandated health care for gay partners, the Archdiocese took the very wise position of extending health care to anyone who lived with an employee regardless of the relationship. I think that was a very wise and humane gesture. We should always affirm caring relationships even if the partners are gay, or divorced. Who are we to judge? Of course, we have a lot of Catholics who are judgmental about a lot of things, even though scripture warns us against that.
I agree that it was a wise decision for the San Fransisco archdiocese to extend health care to a household member, regardless of relationship.
DeleteI think what has changed is a sort of de facto declassification of LBTQ+ sexual relationships as THE Sin. It still considered a sin, among a lot of other sins. Like Jim's parish, I don't know of any "out" LBTQ+ couples. But there probably are some. Just like there are most likely hetero couples who aren't in a relationship blessed by the church, for one reason or another.
ReplyDeleteFunny how the things some people go all St. Athanasius on are nothing to do with the articles of the Creed, or the Trinity, or the role of Mary, or anything like that. It seems like it's all about sex, or who's having it.
The comments at the America site on gay related subjects are often exceedingly vitriolic. It’s clear that the right wing, self- described “authentic” Catholics see LGBTQ liaisons as THE sin.
DeleteWe went to a wedding in Maine recently. There were two lesbian couples. I had met one of them several times previously as they are good friends of the bride. Two middle- aged Latina women - very sweet. I first met them around 15 years ago and everyone was thrilled when they were able to marry. The Opus Dei relatives of one of the women- violently opposed to the relationship- actually showed love and came to their wedding from Mexico. Maybe they were influenced by Francis.
I can’t imagine why people are so condemning, why they feel so threatened. She has other close friends - including two men who are a gay couple whom I’ve met several times. Very enjoyable with great senses of humor. Once again - why do people feel threatened?
But the most interesting was a lesbian couple I hadn’t previously met. One of the women is a minister and was the officiant. I don’t know her background- a lovely, quiet, sweet woman around 50 years old. I suspect she was raised Catholic. I know for sure that her wife was. I couldn’t understand the words of the ceremony ( my husband said they were traditional prayers and vows) but I could see. Her physical motions looked like those one sees in a Catholic ceremony, including raising one hand over the couple for the final blessing.
I could go on and on about the church’s two thousand year history of obsession with sex. I discovered it when I did a deep dive self directed study into the roots of the birth control ban. As I learned more, I was increasingly horrified, especially as it revealed such deep contempt for women, who were all seen as temptresses, luring men into sin from Adam on. That’s why Mary is exalted as “ ever virgin”, despite the biblical evidence that she wasn’t. The mother of Jesus - a man whom they decided was God - had to be “ pure”, unsullied by carnal experience. Virginity in both women and men has been exalted throughout the history of Catholicism. They think, with Augustine among others, that even enjoying licit sex in marriage is a sin - that sex is justifiable only as a necessary evil - the only way to continue the human race. If you get pleasure from sex it’s sinful. This mindset permeates church teaching to this day. Hence the obsession with sexual “ sins”. The church’s teachings related to women, marriage, and sexuality in general ( including homosexuality) are among the most important reasons I stand outside RC church pews and follow a different path..
I think we can respect and honor chastity (everyone is called to that, according to their vocation in life) without believing that anyone who has sex is somehow tainted. Mary's virginity has more to do with the Incarnation of Jesus than any statement about women in general.
DeleteThe church insists that Mary was ever virgin. Even if you buy the whole virgin conception of Jesus teaching, the church insists that she and Joseph never consummated their marriage (and twists the biblical references to Jesus’s brothers and sisters “cousins”) . So they had grounds for annulment- according to Catholic teaching if a marriage isn’t consummated it isn’t a marriage. The church’s horror of sex meant the poor Mary and Joseph could not ever have a normal marriage because Mary had to remain “ pure”. How many virgin martyrs have they canonized? How many women who have had sex ( married with children)? It’s only very recently that the church has canonized any people - men or women - who were once married. Even then, they lionized the couples who gave up sex even though still married. When priests could still marry, they had to abstain from sex for a time before saying mass. It seems they wouldn’t be “ pure” enough if they had sex before saying mass.
DeleteIt took awhile for teaching to evolve; I think a lot of stuff came into the church from Gnosticism and an ambient Greek culture. Same way as a lot of stuff from our not very enlightened ambient culture gets into some corners of the church now. Think white Christian nationalism, which is more evangelical than Catholic. Nevertheless a lot of Catholics have absorbed it. We all swim in an ambient cultural ocean and do not always avoid picking up harmful stuff
DeleteUnfortunately the church hadn’t done a course correction. It refuses to evolve. The sin of pride - it’s too tough for them to admit they are wrong on things when they’ve claimed infallibility. The whole nonsense about still calling modern birth control a mortal sin is a perfect example. The denial of a sacrament based only on gender. Too many to list, all rooted in ancient patriarchal ignorance.
DeleteI think what has also changed in the Francis papacy is the separation of how we treat people who are LBTQ+, from the question of what we consider a sin. An emphasis on "But we have an obligation to tell them they are disordered" is not fraternity or accompaniment.
ReplyDeleteKatherine - the Catechism of the Catholic Church, from the John Paul II era, almost/kinda/sorta made the same distinction, at least implicitly if not explicitly. At the very least, it distinguished the act from the inclination, and (at least implicitly), the inclination from the person.
DeleteIt said the act is sinful. It said the inclination is "objectively disordered", which is not the same thing as saying it's sinful. And it said the person should be treated with "respect, compassion and sensitivity". (I would add, "...and love!")
One way we might understand Francis's words, "Who am I to judge?" is as a commentary on the inclination. His words serve to mitigate whatever negativity is attached to the phrase "intrinsically disordered". Perhaps they even serve to substitute "different" for "disordered".
One more thought on the Catechism and changing attitudes:
DeleteIt's worth reflecting that the Catechism is about three decades old now, i.e. it was publishes at least a generation ago. I'm a believer in the notion that cultural attitudes change intergenerationally. The Catholic news media often presents Francis's personnel changes as replacing "Benedict appointees" with "Francis appointees", and probably there is something to that. But another way to think about it is that those personnel changes are bringing a new generation of leaders into positions of church leaders. With a new generation comes new views and attitudes.
And the same applies to the church as a whole. Those of us who were thought to be young 30 years ago, are practically old ourselves now. We're the new curmudgeons :-). But our attitudes on a variety of subjects is different than our parents' and grandparents' generations. And of course our kids and grandkids are bearers of still other new attitudes.
Personally, I think the synodality process is bearing this out already. The people's feedback on various topics has been more forthright than would have been the case a generation or two ago. Things that only would have been spoken aloud by church activists (and who would have been marginalized for it) are now being thought and spoken by the average person in the pews.
Everybody's disordered to some extent. Who the heck is ordered? I can tell a gay man he's disordered if I admit I'm disordered. The problem is how do you bring some integration and meaning to the chaos you've been given?
ReplyDeleteGood point, Stanley.
DeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteYou said: "It's worth reflecting that the Catechism is about three decades old now, i.e. it was publishes at least a generation ago."
I think it goes without saying that Catholic doctrine (including doctrine on sexual morality) does not continually change with the times or get reversed from one generation to another. I don't see that Catholic teaching has changed on homosexuality since the Catechism was issued. There is a lot less "homophobia" than there used to be. As Katherine says, homosexuality is no longer the sin. But until something along the lines of same-sex marriage is not considered a sin, there really is no place for gay people within the Catholic Church except to the extent that gay Catholics hold that the Church is right about a great many things but wrong about sexual morality. Yes, Catholicism (and Christianity in general) holds that all are sinners, but it also holds that sinners are supposed to do their utmost not to continue in their sins.
Gay people (as opposed to people with a same-sex orientation) are welcomed into the Church, but the Church condemns as sinful the behavior that defines being gay. I confess I don't really understand what the "outreach" folks like Fr. James Martin are up to. They often appear not to be in agreement with Church teaching, but as far as I can tell, they continue to consider same-sex sexual relations to be sinful and consequently cannot approve of even lifelong, monogamous same-sex relationships.
I am not aware that Fr. James Martin advocates against church teaching. If he did, his Jesuit superiors would sanction him (I don't know if sanction is the right word, but they wouldn't stand behind him). What he does do is advocate for better treatment of LGTQ+ people in the church and in society. And especially in families, because if kids suffer family rejection, there are often very bad outcomes, such as suicide.
DeleteThere is a German bishop or two who are advocating giving a blessing to monogamous same sex couples. As far as I know the pope hasn't smacked them down (yet).
DeleteHomosexuality is a natural phenomenon. This 2011 Scientific American article (by, I take it, a gay man) argues that homophobia might be natural, too.
Deletehttps://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/natural-homophobes-evolutionary-psychology-and-antigay-attitudes/
Although religions vary in their tolerance of homosexual activity, there is a background level of homophobia in varied cultures. Hinduism has homoeroticism in its pantheon. But Hindu men still beat up and kill gay men. The article uses Gallup polling to explore the possibility.
I am all for not beating up and killing people. But maybe thinking of the Abrahamic religions as the sole source of homophobia isn't quite right. One may look upon Fr. Martin's efforts as futile but I see them as rooted in the supernatural or transcendant, opposed to brute nature which might include homophobia.
As I recall, the ancient Greeks considered females to be inferior beings, but necessary to bear and raise new human beings. They considered males to be superior in every way, including in their physical makeup. Thus homosexual relationships were not considered abnormal, but normal because of the physical beauty of the male form. Apparently, however, due to the perception that masculinity requires dominance, the preferred sexual partners, both male and female, were very young. The males were dominant, the partners were passive receivers.
DeleteFrom Wiki
“The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identity as modern Western societies have done. Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but rather by the role that each participant played in the sex act, that of active penetrator or passive penetrated.[7] Within the traditions of pederasty, active/passive polarization corresponded with dominant and submissive social roles: the active (penetrative) role was associated with masculinity, higher social status, and adulthood, while the passive role was associated with femininity, lower social status, and youth.[7]”
This philosophy of active-passive partners was echoed by JPII in his Theology of the Body and in his definitions of the “complementarity” of men and women, with men being the actors (active) and women being the passive recipients of the actions of the males.
I believe the Romans had similar attitudes. It was ok to be the penetrator but inferior to be the penetrated. The usage of the "F U" phrase seems to indicate that that attitude still has cachet.
DeleteSo would I be right in inferring that according to the Greeks and Romans, the idea of "consent" of the one who was penetrated was not a consideration?
DeleteNot sure. Here is the wiki article.
Deletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
David, thanks for that thoughtful reply. Regarding this: "I think it goes without saying that Catholic doctrine (including doctrine on sexual morality) does not continually change with the times or get reversed from one generation to another."
DeleteTrue! But church leaders are influenced by larger cultural views (whether or not they want to admit it). In the wider society, I don't think it's likely that wider social acceptance of LGBTQ people and behaviors (at least in the Western developed world) will backslide into greater intolerance in succeeding generations. I think the window, once it starts to open, can't be shut again.
"Gay people (as opposed to people with a same-sex orientation)"
DeleteDavid, sorry to ask such a dumb question: what's the difference?
Gay, in my book anyway, implies self-acceptance. I would not classify as "gay" a man who has a homosexual orientation of which he is ashamed and who enters a heterosexual marriage out of a desire to hide his orientation and same-sex behavior. To put it rather simply, you're not gay unless you self-identify as gay. I think this is one of the reasons you do not find the word gay in official Church documents. The Church speaks of "homosexual persons," but gay people identify as gay. If you call a group what they wish to be called, you are granting them some kind of legitimacy. That was why it was a big deal for the New York Times in 1987 to begin using gay in its pages.
DeleteNote that the Catholic group Courage has a policy of not using the words gay or lesbian. The USCCB in 2006 (Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care) basically advised staying in the closet: "For some persons, revealing their homosexual tendencies to certain close friends, family members, a spiritual director, confessor, or members of a Church support group may provide some spiritual and emotional help and aid them in their growth in the Christian life. In the context of parish life, however, general public self-disclosures are not helpful and should not be encouraged."
Similarly, heterosexual men in prison who commit homosexual acts and who return to heterosexuality when out of prison are not having "gay sex."
Francis Cardinal Spellman, if indeed he really had a homosexual orientation, could not be described as gay. Gay is primarily a self-description. Also, "gayness" is fairly modern phenomenon and the label can't reasonably be applied historically (e.g., to ancient Greeks and Romans).
The reason I have problems understanding what people like James Martin are advocating is that much of what they advocate seems to imply that gay people have a right to acceptance and (more importantly) to self-acceptance, and then in the fine print they acknowledge that the behavior that defines being gay is sinful. It is not welcoming gay people into the Catholic Church if the unspoken part of the welcome is that same-sex sexual activity, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage are prohibited.
David thanks. Your distinction helps me appreciate how difficult it would be for a gay man to be comfortable in the Catholic church.
DeleteA number of decades ago, I used to frequent a Catholic bookstore in Manhattan where Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (founder of First Things) was an occasional speaker. This was at the time when there was a lot of controversy over the exclusion of a gay Irish group from the Saint Patrick's Day Parade. After attending one of Fr. Neuhaus's talks, I approached him on his way out and said something like, "Why does there have to be such conflict between the gay community and the Catholic Church?" He grinned and replied, "Because they know we're right!" It wasn't the answer I was looking for.
ReplyDeleteToo late in the evening to redo for one HTML code, but it should have been:
DeleteHe grinned and replied, "Because they know we're right!"
Well for darned sure Neuhaus never doubted that he was right.
DeleteI never doubted Neuhaus was a nasty, dyspeptic curmudgeon. I subscribed to the magazine for a couple years but his "Public Square" editorials got worse and worse. And his embrace of the whole Republican agenda and neoliberalism was the final straw.
DeleteMy parents subscribed to First Things from the early '90s on. I would check it out when I visited them. Early on it didn't seem too bad, maybe had some interesting articles. But it seemed like as time went on, that it was more right-wing cranky than anything else. Eventually it got too bad, or more likely, too boring, for Dad to put up with and he dropped his subscription.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDavid, you've questioned what James Martin is up to. Thinking about RIchard Neuhaus, whom you've also invoked: in my view he was emblematic of a certain type of public Catholic who uses the "cover" of the church's traditional teaching regarding marriage as permission to hate on LGBTQ persons.
ReplyDeleteI mention this because I think one of the main things Martin is up to is to blow that cover, so to speak. It's to inform those public Catholics, and everyone else, that the church's traditional teaching can't be used as a justification for engaging in hatred.
And it might not even amount to hatred so much as "othering" people.
DeleteOn a related note, a group of right wing Catholics tried to interrupt a Mass for LGBT+ world youth day pilgrims. I don't understand what they hoped to accomplish.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncronline.org/news/right-wing-catholics-interrupt-mass-lgbtq-world-youth-day-pilgrims
Rod Dreher, whom I follow on Twitter (X) largely because I find him often to be outrageously wrongheaded, brought the following Aldous Huxley quote to our attention today, and I think it is brilliant:
Delete“The surest way to work up a crusade in favor of some good cause is to promise people they will have a chance of maltreating someone. To be able to destroy with good conscience, to be able to behave badly and call your bad behavior 'righteous indignation' — this is the height of psychological luxury, the most delicious of moral treats.”
David, you have a stronger tolerance for reading outrageously wrongheaded people than I do. I'm surprised that Dreher put that quote out there. With him lately being best buddies with Orban, I would have thought he would have been in the "behaving like a jerk because he's righteous" camp.
DeleteBTW, I agree that is a brilliant quote. It explains a lot of culture war stuff.
DeleteThere is truth in the quote. But how is one to distinguish such bad behavior from disruptive protest such as done by Extinction Rebellion or those fellows who superficially vandalized Ms. Walmart's yacht in Ibiza, Spain. I don't worry much about the spiritual integrity of protesters or vandalizers. I really care only about whether I agree with their goals or not. I don't agree with the gay Mass bashers. I do agree with climate protesters/disruptors.
DeleteTo me one of the the differences in protests is whether they "punch down" or "punch up". The disruptors of the Mass for LGTB+ youth day pilgrims were punching down. The protests about climate are punching up, corporations or government decisions are usually what they are protesting. I don't agree with property damage/destruction or injury to people regardless of the goal, which is why I would have trouble with vandalism of the yacht. If they want to protest the Walmart corporation, fine.
DeleteDavid said: “I confess I don't really understand what the "outreach" folks like Fr. James Martin are up to. They often appear not to be in agreement with Church teaching, but as far as I can tell, they continue to consider same-sex sexual relations to be sinful and consequently cannot approve of even lifelong, monogamous same-sex relationships.”
ReplyDeleteLet me bring my two years of Jesuit Novice experience to understanding Fr. Martin and Francis “whom am I to judge”
Much of what Francis says and does leads me to believe that we had a very similar novitiate. He took vows at the end of the novitiate in March of the year that I entered at the end of July. Martin came later, and I think entered later in life, so I am not so sure about him.
Jesuits always presume permission. Ignatius loved rules; every time he sent Jesuits on a mission he gave them a set of rules, something like our modern goals and objectives, which set out the ideal results and means to be used. Nevertheless, all rules have their exceptions except for the ultimate ones that everything is for the greater glory of God and the salvation of souls (i.e. the two great commandments, love of God and love of neighbor).
Always give others a "plus sign", i.e., interpret what another says or does in the most positive orthodox light. If your fellow novice is not following the rules, assume he has permission or has good reason to presume permission. There was a lot of humor about this in our novitiate culture. For example, observing a fellow novice you could make the sign of the cross in a way that it conveyed a blessing, e.g. "go ahead, I understand what you doing," or it could be given in a way that it conveyed absolution, e.g. "brother. maybe you should go to confession!"
Giving the plus sign derives from the Spiritual Exercises in which Ignatius says the person who gives the Exercises should assume an orthodox interpretation of anything the retreatant says, ideally reformulating it in orthodox language, and ever persisting in trying to achieve a shared orthodox understanding.
Lastly, we go in their door in order that they come out our door.” Jesuits adopt the framework, understanding, and assumptions of the people they are trying to evangelize so that they may eventually come to our framework and understanding.
Francis and Martin well understand the culture of rules within which they function. But they also understand the greater glory of God and salvation on souls is the ultimate rule to which a whole range of lesser rules much yield, e.g., the primacy of conscience. They are not going to say throw away the rules, but they are willing to work with people to achieve a better understanding and use of the rules in particular situations. They are willing to understand why other people think the rules do not apply to them, attempting to fit that with traditional orthodox understanding of the rules.
Thanks Jack, for an insider look at Jesuit thinking.
DeleteWe were speaking of First Things a few comments back. I had to laugh at Michael Sean Winters' referencing it in his column today. He called it "Last Gasps".
ReplyDeleteHaven't heard much of Weigel lately. Last Gasps is a good place for him.
DeletePope Francis is a good man. But he is a hostage to 2000 years of church teaching. His exhortation of todos, todos, todos does reflect his personal views I believe, but it does not reflect the church’s views.
ReplyDeleteThe pope's remarks came in response to a reporter who asked how Francis can say "todos" when LGBTQ people and women are excluded from the sacraments.
The pope's response was abstract, seeming to note that in reference to the question of ordination or gay marriage that while the church has laws, it does not mean the church is closed to such individuals. Instead, he said, they must be accompanied by the church.
So all are NOT welcome as equals in the RCC. Women and gay people are still second- class, denied sacraments simply because of who they are. The pope knows this. “Accompaniment” is meant to soothe the consciences of the men who deny women and gay people their rights to the sacraments. It is a meaningless prescription essential saying “We hear you. We know you are in pain. We really do care. Really we do! But we won’t do a d**n thing to change the situation.”
I don't believe that it is meaningless.. In the not very distant past, they didn't even make an effort towards accompaniment. It matters that the pope hears their pain. You are right that there is the weight of 2000 years. Sometimes that is good and sometimes it is bad. But it is unrealistic to expect that a 180 is going to happen in less than a generation.
ReplyDeleteWill they accompany the second- class gays, the divorced and remarried without an annulment to receive communion? After all, the church is constantly drumming it in that the Eucharist is the whole point. But not for some. After 2000 years, one would expect a 180 actually. It’s a meaningless phrase meant to soothe people, keep them - and their money - in the pews.
DeleteIt reminds me of Rosa Parks - she was allowed onto the bus, bu she couldn’t sit in the front. Second class citizen so she had to sit in the back of the bus. LGBTQ can sit anywhere they want in the church, but the can’t receive the sacrament of communion. Second class citizens of the church.Women can receive communion but they can’t serve as deacons or priests - also second class citizens because they can’t receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders. They, like LGBTQ are denied sacraments and are thus second class citizens simply due to who they are - how they were born. Accompaniment is meaningless in the face of this discrimination.
DeleteAnne, what about gay people or women who believe that Jesus was God incarnate and that the Catholic Church, however flawed and however mistaken on some issues, is the authentic continuation of the movement he began 2000 years ago?
DeleteIf ordination into the priesthood is what the Church claims it to be and faithful Catholics believe it to be, wouldn't women leaving the organization that has the priesthood be cutting off their noses to spite their faces even though it might be unjust that they have no chance to be ordained?
Is it possible that second-class citizenship is better than no citizenship at all?
Each person has to decide for themselves. I believe that the teachings about gays and women are not only wrong, they are harmful. Jesus’s teachings don’t cause harm. They were developed by human beings - specifically male human beings- not by Jesus. Jesus’s treatment of women was quite radically egalitarian in an ancient patriarchal culture which lumped wives in with the house and the ass as possessions - “goods” that should not be coveted by others according to the Ten Commandments. In fact, the teachings on women and gays seem antithetical to what Jesus taught as best we know from the gospels - which, as we do know, were written long after his death by people who were not eyewitnesses. As far as the priesthood goes - Jesus did not ordain anyone. There was no Catholic priesthood during the lifetime of the Jew named Jesus and his Jewish followers. Nor was there an ordained priesthood for many decades after he died. Men - human beings - created the priesthood as the Jesus movement spread, once sharing bread and wine and his teachings in private homes presided over by the head of the household ( sometimes this was a woman) became impractical. Ignatius of Antioch was probably the founder of the ordained priesthood and what evolved into the hierarchical, clerical institution.
DeleteSince these man- made teachings cause serious harm to many, I chose to leave active participation in the RCC so that I wouldn’t be a passive participant in the harm by supporting the institutional church. One can believe that Jesus was divine, hear the gospel, and receive sacraments in other churches which have dropped the teachings that cause harm. Those who truly believe that the RCC is the “one, true church” might feel they have to stay. But they should hold up every teaching to the gospels and ask themselves if it reflects what Jesus taught. A lot of them don’t. Catholicism was my foundation, and a part of me will always be Catholic in some sense. But my spiritual life is now lived outside church walls.
The Christian movement evolved over centuries, and the bishop of Rome only became “pope” in hindsight. Historians and biblical scholars are not even all convinced that Peter was in Rome or was executed there. The Orthodox also teach that they are “ the one, true church” and certainly their lineage traces all the way back as far as the Catholic church’s history does. But I always keep in mind that Jesus was a Jew, not a member of what later became the Christian church, and, even later, the Roman Catholic Church. No church is “the one, true church” . All teach what they think Jesus taught. All think that they have the only correct understandings of the Bible and what Jesus taught.The truth is that none of them do - they are all fallible, human institutions, doing their best to understand and teach what Jesus taught, but none of them getting it totally right.
But I’m very much a doubter and have been for many years. The more I studied church teachings, tracing them backwards through time, the more I studied the history of Christianity and Catholicism , the more I learned about the Bible, etc, the more I realized that a whole lot of what I was taught growing up Catholic - and mostly believed until I was in my late 30s - reflected human understandings that evolved over two millennia and really had very little to do with what Jesus himself taught.