Francis's gaffe

Many news outlets, including secular, mainstream news organizations such as the New York Times and ABC News, are reporting on a remark, including a very unfortunate word, which Pope Francis recently uttered when talking about the possibility of LGBTQ seminarians.  

Here is NY Times reporter Elisabetta Povoledo's summary of what happened:

Francis had been taking questions from Italian bishops meeting for their annual assembly on a number of issues when the question of whether or not to admit openly gay men into seminaries, or priesthood colleges, came up.

According to several people present at the meeting, who spoke anonymously to Italian media, Francis stated a firm no, saying that seminaries were already too full of “frociaggine,” an offensive slang term referring to gay men.

There are two developments in that second paragraph, both of which, to one degree or another, personally I find disappointing: that gay men still are not officially to be permitted to be accepted into seminaries; and Francis's use of that Italian word.  The word in question has been variously characterized as "off-color", "vulgar", "offensive" and "a slur".  Some news outlets have suggested it is similar to the American English colloquial slur "faggot" or "faggot-ness".  (Sorry, I know that is an offensive word; I would never use it.)

Here is Gerard O'Connell from America Magazine on the context that led to Francis's remark:

The question regarding homosexuality and seminarians has been under discussion for some time by the Italian bishops’ conference, and according to Il Corriere della Sera, at their meeting in Assisi last November, they “had approved a new document ‘Ratio Formationis Sacerdotalis,’ not yet approved by the Holy See, regulating admission to and formation in [Italian] seminaries, in which they approved by majority vote an amendment that recognized the distinction between simple homosexual orientation and ‘deeply rooted tendencies.’”

This, the paper reported, meant “in substance, that a homosexual person could be admitted to the seminary if, like the heterosexual, he gave the guarantee that he knows how to live the discipline of celibacy. The implication is that it is more difficult for homosexuals because they will be living in an all-male community for many years.” But, the paper observed, “it seems that Pope Francis has a more radical vision: to avoid problems of this kind, homosexual persons should not be admitted to the seminary. Full stop!”

La Repubblica reported much the same but added that two or three bishops raised questions on this subject at last week’s meeting with the pope, and one of them explicitly asked Francis what he as a bishop should do “when an openly declared homosexual knocks at the door of the seminary.” The paper said, “The pope, who already in the past had manifested his opposition to this [entry], responded in a firmly negative way, while emphasizing that respect is due to every person irrespective of their sexual orientation.”

According to La Repubblica, Francis said that “it is necessary to put down markers, and prevent the risk that the gay person who chooses the priesthood could later end up living a double-life, continuing to practice homosexuality, while at the same time suffering from this dissimulation.”

What possessed Francis to use that word?  Among the explanations offered: 

• His first language is Spanish, not Italian, and so he may not have appreciated the negative connotation of the Italian colloquialism; 
• He is an elderly man (87 years old) who has not "kept up" with the changing social norms around word usage
• Someone in the crowd asked him a question that had that word in it, and in responding, he used the same word
• Using crude, inelegant language is characteristic of him, and as John Allen of Crux put it, "part of his pastoral charm"
• This was simply a gaffe.  

The term "gaffe" can have varied meanings.  Google's dictionary defines it as a blunder or mistake: "an unintentional act or remark causing embarrassment to its originator; a blunder."  The Cambridge English Dictionary comes closer to that which seems to apply to this instance: "a remark or action that is a social mistake and not considered polite".  Merriam-Webster's definition seems pertinent for situations such as this one, where the 'gaffer' is a prominent personage: "a social or diplomatic blunder".  Michael J O'Loughlin, a gay journalist at America who wrote a highly-recommended commentary piece on the affair, perhaps gets to the nub of it, wondering whether this is "an instance of a public figure mistakenly saying aloud what he or she really believes?"

Unfortunately, this incident will not be helpful in what surely has been one of Francis's projects, to reach out to LGBTQ Catholics and assure them that the church doors are open to them.  Here is O'Loughlin:

Last month, I wrote about the sense of whiplash many LGBTQ Catholics felt after the Vatican released a document condemning “gender ideology,” which took particular aim at medical interventions sometimes sought by people living with gender dysmorphia. 

Reports that Francis used an offensive slur present another moment of whiplash, especially because it rubs up against his well-worn image as someone trying to make the church more welcoming to the LGBTQ community. 

No ally is perfect, and sometimes even someone with the best of intentions will reach a limit in terms of how far they are able to go. Perhaps that limit has been reached. 

Still, Pope Francis has given space for others to engage in the kinds of dialogue, scholarly research and pastoral practice that will be necessary for the church to truly become what the pope dreams of: a place that is for todos, todos, todos—everyone, everyone, everyone. 

What that future work entails is unclear. But unless the church engages in the kinds of deep theological reflection needed to understand what it means to welcome and integrate LGBTQ people into the life of the church, in meaningful and concrete ways, the LGBTQ community will continue to be left grasping onto gestures. Gestures alone, no matter how well meaning, are not enough.

Over the years, we've talked quite a bit here about the church's multiple LGTBQ-related issues, including with its own gay clergy who don't feel permitted to be open about their sexuality.  I believe this situation breeds dysfunction in many ways.  The Holy Father would be well-advised to accede to the better angels of his nature by declaring that a person's sexuality should have no bearing, either on the person's standing as a Catholic or as a member of the clergy.