Tag Archives: Family Synod 2014

Catholic_Church, Sexuality and gender

Let’s Talk About – Contraception!

1 Comment

…no papal teaching document has ever caused such an earthquake in the Church as the encyclical ‘Humanae Vitae.’  – Catholic theologian, Fr Bernard Haring

The feature of the 2014 Family Synod that most surprised me, was the near absence of any discussion about contraception – except for repeated confirmation of support for “Humanae Vitae”. As Peter Steinfels puts it at the Washington Post,

At last October’sExtraordinary Synod on the Family, bishops grabbed headlines by debating controversial topics such as admitting remarried Catholics to Communion and acknowledging the upsides of same-sex relationships. But the discussion of contraception was perfunctory. The bishops simply called on the church to do a better job of propagating “the message of the encyclical Humanae Vitae.” In other words, the widespread rejection of the birth-control ban is simply a messaging problem.

That’s not true. The church’s unwillingness to grapple with a deep and highly visible gap between official teaching and actual practice undermines Catholic vigor and unity at every level. It encourages Catholics to disregard all manner of other teachings, including those on marriage and abortion. If the church wants to restore its moral authority, it must address this gnawing question.

Continue reading Let’s Talk About – Contraception! →

Catholic_Church, Sexuality and gender

Synod’s Gross Distortion of International Pressure & Gay Marriage

Leave a comment

There only two paragraphs In the synod’s final “Relatio” referring specifically to homosexuality. The second of these, which was approved by the comfortable margin of 159 to 21, states (in a modified Google translation):

56 It is totally unacceptable that the Pastors of the Church suffer pressure in this matter and that international bodies make financial aid to poor countries conditional on the introduction of laws that establish “marriage” between persons of the same sex.

If this had any connection with reality on the ground, I would find this completely unexceptional I am a firm supporter of the principle of equal marriage in civil law. I am also an African, and deeply conscious of how well- intentioned Western attempts to influence African governments are perceived (all too often, quite justly) as neo-colonial interference. Such efforts can easily backfire, with serious unintended consequences. For that reason, I agree with the bishops that Western attempts to manipulate foreign aid to force gay marriage on African countries is unacceptable – if such pressure existed, or was even under discussion. It is not. In this matter, the bishops are tilting at windmills, a figment of their fevered collective imagination. The tragedy is that in their terror of the imagined threat of gay marriage, they are ignoring a serious reality, which even an African Archbishop at the synod. acknowledged is a real problem – the criminalization of gay people.

There just is not a single government, multilateral agency, or NGO that has ever suggested that aid should be tied to the introduction of gay marriage, or any other legal recognition of same – sex unions. What has been proposed is quite different: using aid to oppose the criminalization of homosexuality, and the victimization of gay people.

Archbishop Kaigama said the Church’s position against criminalisation has been misrepresented in the media:

“We would defend any person with a homosexual orientation who is being harassed, imprisoned or punished….so when the media takes our story they should balance it….we try to share our point of view (but) we don’t punish them. The government may want to punish them but we don’t, in fact we will work to tell the government to stop punishing those who have different orientations.”

– Vatican Radio

I’ve noted before that Archbishop Kaigama’s protestations that the Church’s alleged “misrepresentation in the media” would be more credible if he could demonstrate any actual record of having opposed the criminalization legislation, or other grievous harms against gay and lesbian people in Africa. It is disgraceful that the synod has ignored one real problem, by itself grossly misrepresenting the nature of Western concerns about criminalization and persecution of gay people.

Related articles
Catholic_Church, Pastoral Ministry

Synod: So, Who “Won”?

Leave a comment

Many of the reports on the “final” synod document in the MSM and at the Krazy Katholic blogs have focussed on claims that this is somehow a victory for the conservatives, or a defeat for Pope Francis. Both are completely unjustified.

One clue to why this is so, is in this useful information about the synod posted in the Changing Attitude facebook group by Johan Bergström-Allen:

Hope group members will be encouraged by a bit of news from Rome..

Very good BBC interview with Cardinal Vincent Nichols (at 05:00 on iPlayer) who reveals that some of the 72 Synod delegates in Rome who voted against the “welcome to gay people” wording in the final document (with 118 in favour) did so because it either went too far OR NOT FAR ENOUGH.

Vincent says he can’t remember how he voted (there were 60 votes in under an hour), but that – reflecting the policy in his own diocese of Westminster – he felt the wording didn’t go far enough, because the key words “welcome”, “respect” and “value” were missing. The cardinal hopes the next stage of the Synod will encourage a more welcoming attitude to LGBT people.

Let’s hope the Synod process moves forward with discernment, honest discussion, and a Christ-like passion for pastoral care. God bless Cardinal Vincent for his compassion and balance, and God bless Pope Francis for his wisdom, his collegiality, and his caring heart.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04m3rrs

“Encouraging news”, indeed – especially (but not exclusively) for those of us here in the UK. Also worth noting, is that approval for the final text was not based on simple majority vote, but required a two – thirds majority. Reports elsewhere have suggested that on some of the more welcoming passages that were left out of the final text, did in fact have the support of the majority, but just not enough to get to two thirds. Also important, just as words of support were excluded from the bland final document, so too were the harsher words that were proposed by the reactionaries. There were no “winners” or “losers” in this, other than a clear win for open and frank discussion – a major step forward for the Catholic Church.

Related articles

Catholic_Church, Marriage / family, Pastoral Ministry

Two (or Three) Steps Forward, One Back Is Still Progress.

1 Comment

Much of the gay/ progressive commentary on the final synod statement has expressed “disappointment” that it omitted the language of welcome that had been included in the interim report released after the first week. A post by Frank DeBenardo at Bondings 2.0 is headlined (in part) “Synod Final Report Disappoints….“. Similarly, a press release by the LGBT Catholics Westminster Pastoral Council expresses similar disappointment at what has been left out.

Seen in context however, this disappointment should be regarded as only relative. Instead of comparing where we are today with where we were on Monday, we should be giving thanks for how far we’ve come, from where we were before the Synod began. The interim report got such a strong reception on Monday precisely because it was so very much more supportive than anybody had been expecting. The fact that the same language did not make into the final report therefore, should have surprised nobody – especially when a substantial number of the voting participants were bishops from Africa, joining with the better known Western conservatives such as Cardinal Raymond Burke and the like.

Far more significant than the ultimate omission of the explicit words of support and welcome for lesbian and gay Catholics, should be recognition of just how close the synod came to including them – and how much offensive language that has previously been routine, was also left out.

The LGBT Catholics Westminster Pastoral Council press release draws attention to just how close we came to an endorsement of full and explicit inclusion (emphasis added):

We note that the paragraphs on homosexuality which did not receive the required 2/3 rd‘s vote,failed by only two votes, notwithstanding significant support from a majority of bishops.

Now consider what else is not said.

Remarkably for a synod expressly convened to consider the challenges and problems faced by the family in the modern world, in four detailed paragraphs on the nature of these difficulties, there is not a single word of reference to gay marriage as one of them.

There is also a notable absence of the tragically familiar language of “gravely disordered”, or any reminder that the only sexual expression is within (heterosexual) marriage, or any claims that gay sex is all about mere indulgent self – gratification.

Nor is there the use of the insulting term “same – sex attraction”, which Cardinal Napier, for insistence, gratuitously inserted into his furious reaction after the release of the interim report, which had used the term “homosexuals”. There was no reference at all to “same – sex attraction”, or to “homosexuals”, or to “gay and lesbian” – because we were just not referred to, as a group.

In comparison with previous documents on sexuality, we should in fact be grateful, not disappointed, that “homosexuals” are not even mentioned in the final report. What did feature, strongly, was the language of inclusion for all. That will most certainly include lesbian and gay Catholics, alongside divorced and remarried people, but it will also include others who did not feature at all in the interim report: trans Catholics, for example, or women, or single adults.  The problem with identifying specific groups for inclusion, as we know from the alphabet soup of terms like LGBTQQIA….. , is that the more we attempt to enumerate specific groups, the more we run the risk of not including others.

If the more welcoming / progressive bishops failed to retain the positive language originally proposed, for us or for those who have divorced and remarried, because they only just failed to secure the required two – thirds majority, it is far more important to note the far more dismal failure of the reactionaries to secure even a simple majority. The report is in fact most remarkable not for its content, but for its blandness. There is nothing in it remotely controversial – unsurprising, for a document that required two thirds approval from bishops of an extraordinary range of backgrounds.

What this is, is simply a starting point for further reflection, study and discussion, There will be much more of this over the next year, at all levels of the Church, as the Westminster LGBT Pastoral Council reminds us:

Second, this report is not the final word, but as a Vatican spokesperson explained, it is still a working document which will be discussed in the coming year. We now call upon the Vatican and local Bishops’ Conferences to institute Listening Processes over the coming year, to include LGBT people, parents, and other family members, alongside theologians and experienced pastoral ministers.

It is essential that LGBT Catholics should do everything we can, individually and collectively, to participate in these discussions and study processes wherever we are able, in all our faith communities, parish, diocesan, LGBT support groups, or on-line, wherever we find them.

Pope Francis has placed these issues on the table, and all the signs are that his action is irreversible, given the strong statements made in his closing speech to the Synod. If, as on a range of matters held to be controversial by some sections of the hierarchy, there is a move to a more open and listening pastoral practice then this could lead to the development of a richer theology of human sexuality, and a more credible and human face of the Church. In this way we can become credible disciples, witnessing to the joy of the Gospel with which the Pope constantly challenges us.

Related articles
Catholic_Church, Theology

“Gradualism” and the Inevitability of Doctrinal Change

1 Comment

One of the key themes of the family synod has been the idea of “gradualism”, which has meant in this context, the idea that those whose lives currently fall outside of the approved moral norms, can move step by step closer to ideal moral states. The task of the church then, should be to encourage such transitions, rather than simplistically condemning the initial state as unacceptable. One example which makes clear what is meant, is that of cohabitation, which is clearly unacceptable in standard doctrine. However, cohabitation and commitment to a single partner represents a clear improvement on a single life of sexual promiscuity, with a succession of one – night stands In turn, civil marriage, while not formally recognized by the Church, is a public commitment to fidelity and permanence in the relationship, and so is an improvement on mere cohabitation – and leaves open the possibility of later upgrading to sacramental marriage, in church:

In this respect, a new dimension of today’s family pastoral consists of accepting the reality of civil marriage and also cohabitation, taking into account the due differences. Indeed, when a union reaches a notable level of stability through a public bond, is characterized by deep affection, responsibility with regard to offspring, and capacity to withstand tests, it may be seen as a germ to be accompanied in development towards the sacrament of marriage. Very often, however, cohabitation is established not with a view to a possible future marriage, but rather without any intention of establishing an institutionally-recognized relationship.

Imitating Jesus’ merciful gaze, the Church must accompany her most fragile sons and daughters, marked by wounded and lost love, with attention and care, restoring trust and hope to them like the light of a beacon in a port, or a torch carried among the people to light the way for those who are lost or find themselves in the midst of the storm.

From this perspective, “gradualism” is a one – way process, whereby Catholic practice by individuals and couples, is brought into ever increasing conformity with Catholic doctrine. There is however, another use of the word in Catholic discourse, but one which has not featured in official summaries of synod discussions – that “gradualism” can also apply to slow and incremental change in Catholic doctrine itself, bringing it by degrees into ever closer conformity with real world Catholic practice. This could be why the more conservative bishops are setting themselves so resolutely against significant change in pastoral practice, as well as against change in doctrine. They know, and are afraid, that change in pastoral practice frequently leads to subsequent change in doctrine.

One simple example of how change in official doctrines must change if the proposed adjustments to pastoral practice are accepted, is in the matter of language – specifically, phrases like “contraceptive mentality”, “intrinsically disordered”, and “living in sin”. The first two of these at least are embedded in the Vatican documents: “contraceptive mentality” in the writing of Pope John Paul II, and “intrinsically disordered” in that of Cardinal Ratzinger as Prefect of the Congregation for the Protection of the Faith. It is difficult to see how to get rid of such language without rewriting or replacing the relevant texts, or how such rewriting with more appropriate language would not also institute a change of emphasis in the underlying doctrine.

Moreover, although the synod was quite specifically not called to consider any change to doctrine, at least some of those attending have been openly saying that such change is essential. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin of Dublin is one, and (I think) Cardinal Baldisseri, overseeing the entire synod process, is another.

The opponents of change may insist as much as they like that it is “impossible” to change Church doctrine, but they are simply wrong. In his widely publicized lengthy interview last year with …… Pope Francis himself acknowledged that what he described as “evolution” in church teaching (i.e. gradual change) is inevitable.

There is great irony in the use of this argument of “impossibility” with respect to communion after divorce and remarriage, because if it really were true that change in the matter is impossible – the synod would not now be having the debate in the first place. The whole thrust of the argument for change by Cardinal Kasper, who raised the idea in the first place, is that current rigidity does not reflect the practice of the earliest church, which accepted the doctrine of indissolubility of marriage – but also displayed greater flexibility and nuance in practical responses to individual Christians in such situations.

Some might argue that this earlier practice was a difference in pastoral practice, not doctrine – but part of the resistance to any change at all, is precisely based on the argument that in this matter, both the question of remarriage after divorce itself, and that of the refusal of communion, are matters of doctrine. Those resisting change cannot have it both ways: either the refusal of communion is a simple matter of pastoral practice (or of church discipline), or we must acknowledge that the doctrine has changed in the past, and can change again – just as it has done, and will do, on so many other matters across two thousand years of Christian history.

Related articles

Catholic_Church

Synodality: “Journeying Together” with the Church

Leave a comment

The ” relatio post disceptationem” document read to the synod yesterday by Cardinal Erdo has made the headlines and inspired extensive commentary worldwide. LGBT and other progressive Catholics are enthusiastic, the conservative, rule – book and holier than thou blogs are enraged. It’s important to remember though, that in its content, this is only a preliminary document. The final version, which must still be agreed by a majority of the synod, could be very different – or could vary only in detail. Even that will not be final. That will be distributed worldwide for further discussion, and then considered again at next year’s synod.

Cardinal Erdo

But beyond the detail and what is said, even if it is changed, there’s another reason to be excited about this remarkable document, and that is the entire process behind it.Unlike the previous synod, where JPII effectively told the bishops what to think about marriage and family and brooked no dissent, Francis has taken the opposite approach. He has contributed little to the proceedings directly, and encouraged openness and frankness. The detail of the procedures of the synod changed substantially from previous practice, to encourage full and free exchange of ideas. 15 married couples spoke to the synod, introducing each session. Many of the bishops described how valuable this was – one news report even claimed that the married couples were “stealing the show”. In the same way, the relatio itself suggests at one point, that in future, priests in training should be learning from married couples.

32. The need was jointly referred to for a conversion of all pastoral practices from the perspective of the family, overcoming the individualistic points of view that still characterize it. This is why there was a repeated insistence on renewing in this light the training of presbyters and other pastoral operators, through a greater involvement of the families themselves.

As the final version is sent out into the world, the clear expectation is that a similar openness to full and frank discussion should apply, in the church as a whole. That will most certainly include lay Catholics – LGBT people among them:

26.  Evangelizing is the shared responsibility of all God’s people, each according to his or her own ministry and charism. Without the joyous testimony of spouses and families, the announcement, even if correct, risks being misunderstood or submerged by the ocean of words that is a characteristic of our society

Let us add to that, the “joyous testimony” of same – sex spouses and our queer families. It becomes more important than ever for us to identify openly in our congregations and other faith communities, to participate fully (and where denied, to demand the right of full participation), and to join in the debate wherever we can: engaging with our local bishops, speaking frankly to our parish priests, and in discussions with our co-parishioners.

Two words frequently used by Pope Francis to describe the operation and atmosphere of the synod, are “collegiality” , which should have been standard practice since Vatican II but in practice has been moribund, and “synodality”, which takes us to the derivation of “synod” itself, from two common Greek words:

syn-  = together

odos- = way, journey.

“synod” = journeying together!

Let us then, LGBTQI or straight, married or single, deeply involved in our local parishes or on the fringes of the Church, participate with joy in this new experience, of journeying together with the Church as a whole, in digesting and working through the implications of this synod, in thoughtful, prayerful preparation for the next.

Related articles
Catholic_Church, Marriage / family, Pastoral Ministry

Synod: Need to Welcome and VALUE Gay Couples!

1 Comment

Throughout the first week of the family synod in Rome, there have been tantalising suggestions that the Catholic Church is moving towards greater sensitivity and awareness of the real pastoral needs of lesbian and gay Catholics. Today, that possibility was confirmed, with the release of a formal summary document of the proceedings thus far, which goes way beyond a simple call for welcoming us, but even to raising the possibility of “accepting and valuing” our sexual orientation. There is also, for the first time the significant use of the term “partners” in referring to the couples in same – sex relationships, and recognition of the mutual support and sacrifice the partners give to each other.

family synod, opening

50. Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community: are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities? Often they wish to encounter a Church that offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of providing that, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?

51. The question of homosexuality leads to a serious reflection on how to elaborate realistic paths of affective growth and human and evangelical maturity integrating the sexual dimension: it appears therefore as an important educative challenge. The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that pressure be brought to bear on pastors or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations inspired by gender ideology.

52. Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to the children who live with couples of the same sex, emphasizing that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.

Synod14 –  “Relatio post disceptationem”

From the moment that the synod was announced, it seemed probable that it would not lead directly to any change in Church doctrines any time soon, but that it could lead to an improvement in language and pastoral practice. It now seems possible that the anticipated change could be substantially greater than most observers had anticipated. Consider not only the specific words in the text above, but also what was NOT said. For example, it is stated that the Church cannot accept gay marriage, but there is no condemnation of civil unions, or of same – sex relationships in general, nor is gay marriage listed in the opening description of threats to the family.

New Ways Ministry has issued a statement welcoming the document, which the veteran Vatican watcher John Thavis has described (quite appropriately) as a “pastoral earthquake at the synod“, not only for the change of tone on lesbian and gay Catholics, but also for many other aspects of ministry to families. (A further sign of the hope contained in this document is that the conservative, holier than thou rule – book Catholic blogs are squawking in horror).

This important document should be studied carefully. It will form the basis of further discussion by the bishops, before being voted on at the close. The conclusion, quoted below, notes that final version, as agreed by the bishops, will then be taken away by the bishops for further reflection and sharing over the next year, in preparation for the final, general synod that will conclude the two year process.

Conclusion

The reflections put forward, the fruit of the Synodal dialog that took place in great freedom and a spirit of reciprocal listening, are intended to raise questions and indicate perspectives that will have to be matured and made clearer by the reflection of the local Churches in the year that separates us from the Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of bishops planned for October 2015. These are not decisions that have been made nor simply points of view. All the same the collegial path of the bishops and the involvement of all God’s people under the guidance of the Holy Spirit will lead us to find roads of truth and mercy for all. This is the wish that from the beginning of our work Pope Francis has extended to us, inviting us to the courage of the faith and the humble and honest welcome of the truth in charity.

(At the end of his post, John Thavis adds an important caution that there may be some translation issues in the English language text on the Vatican website:

A TRANSLATION ISSUE: Some people are taking issue with the English version of the relatio (a translation of the original Italian text that was put out by the Vatican press office but which is not “official”) and its treatment of the homosexuality issue. Specifically, this line: “Are our communities capable of providing that (a welcoming home for homosexuals), accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?”

The Italian text uses the verb valutare, which can mean a lot of things — to value, appreciate, consider, evaluate or judge. The English translators decided on “valuing.” I think “appreciating” would also fit. Given the context of the sentence (“welcoming” and “accepting”), I don’t think translating the word as “evaluating” or “judging” would make much sense. In any case, the sentence has apparently already caused some fireworks in the synod hall, so it will be interesting to see if it survives the revision process.)

Related articles

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Catholic_Church, Pastoral Ministry

The Heavy – Handed CDF, Contradicting Pope Francis.

Leave a comment
In his widely celebrated Apostolic Exhortation, “Evangelii Gaudium” (The Joy of the Gospel), Pope Francis touched on a wide range of important subjects in Catholic teaching – but notably had nothing at all to say about gay marriage, or on the wider subjects of sexual ethics or same – sex relationships in general. The only explanation for this remarkable omission on so topical a subject, is a clue in the opening section, where he notes that he has not attempted to discuss everything of importance, because some things need further study. Later, he suggested that the subject of homosexuality should be referred to the Pontifical Academy for Science, or that for Social Science. Throughout his papacy, he has consistently promoted openness and free discussion, and his hand – picked choice as leader of the Italian Bishops’ Conference, Bishop Nunzio Galantino, has stated unequivocally that the Church needs full and frank discussion, without fear, and without taboos, of the controversial issues facing the Church – including gay marriage, abortion, communion after divorce, remarriage, and more. The pope has also urged far greater decentralization of the church, proposing that as far as possible, disputes within the Church should be settled at local level, by national bishops, and not in Rome.
evangelii gaudium
Cardinal Gerhard Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has clearly not got the message.
Instead, he continues in the same style as his predecessor at the CDF, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger / Pope Benedict XVI, in clamping down hard on any perceived deviation from his interpretation of the rules. In the latest example of many, he has interfered directly in the Archdiocese of St Andrews and Edinburgh, instructing Archbishop Cushley to refuse permission for the respected Catholic theologian Tine Beattie to speak on church property.
Tina Beattie
In his letter, seen by The Tablet, the archbishop wrote: “Professor Beattie is known to have frequently called into question the Church’s teaching. I would therefore ask you to cancel this event, as it may not proceed or be publicised on any Church property in this archdiocese.”
The archbishop also uses the letter – dated 11 July but only released this week – to rebuke the association for organising a talk by theologian Joe Fitzpatrick, who has written a book critiquing original sin and seeking to make Genesis compatible with evolution
What is particularly disturbing here, is that this claim that she has “frequently called into question the Church’s teaching” is entirely unsubstantiated. Professor Beattie herself emphatically denies the charge. In previous instances where she was similarly prevented from speaking, also at the behest of the CDF (under the previous pope), the reason appeared to have been the open letter that she signed a few years ago on the subject of gay marriage. That letter however, was not arguing specifically in favour of gay marriage, but simply for the right of Catholics to disagree in conscience on the matter. That primacy of conscience is deeply embedded in Catholic teaching, and should not be seen as controversial.
Professor Beattie, a director of The Tablet, wrote to Archbishop Cushley expressing her concern about his decision in a letter dated 2 September – she has yet to receive a reply. “You say that I am ‘known to have frequently called into question the Church’s teaching’. Known by whom, in what context and with reference to which of my published works?” she wrote. “Never in my published writings or talks have questioned any of the doctrinal mysteries of the Catholic faith. On the contrary, I have consistently argued in defence of even the most frequently challenged doctrines of the Church.” On gay unions, Professor Beattie said that she signed the letter at a time when Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop Cushley’s predecessor, was one of the “most vociferous opponents of same-sex marriage” and that she believes that Catholics could enter a “more reasoned and nuanced public dialogue” about the matter than the hierarchy allowed.

Related Posts:

Catholic_Church, Pastoral Ministry

Family Synod: Another Influential, Supportive Cardinal?

Leave a comment
Has the Catholic Church always tried to show respect for stable, same – sex partnerships? Cardinal Damasceno Assis of Aparecida, Brazil, president of the Brazil bishops’ conference, and one of three co-presidents of next month’s Family Synod, seems to think so.
Cardinal Damasceno Assis
A Brazilian, Portuguese language report at Folha de S.Paolo states that referring to the 2011 decision of the Brazilian Supreme Court which  affirmed the right same – sex couples to have their unions recognized in civil law, the Cardinal had this to say:
“It is a decision by the Supreme [Federal Court, the highest Constitutional Court in Brazil]. Of course, for the Church, it [homosexual union] cannot be equated to marriage, that is different. But, regarding respect for the stable union between these people, there is no doubt that the Church has always [sempre] been trying to do it this way“, said Damasceno Assis
The above English translation is taken from Rorate Coeli. Here’s the original Portuguese:
“É uma decisão do Supremo.  Claro que, para a igreja, não se pode equiparar a um casamento,  isso é diferente. Mas respeitar a união estável entre essas pessoas, não há dúvida de que a igreja sempre tem procurado fazer dessa maneiro”, disse Damasceno.)
Many LGBT Catholics would disagree strongly with the cardinal’s judgement that the Church has always been supportive of stable same – sex unions, especially those in Africa, who have seen some of their bishops celebrating draconian anti-gay legislation which foments hatred and violence against gay people, who dare not make public their relationships, stable or not. American gay Catholics who have been dismissed from church employment or ministry for affirming and protecting their stable relationships in civil marriage would also disagree with this .sanguine judgement
The statement however, is important, in the context of the upcoming synod on marriage and family, less for what it says about the Church in the past, as to what some senior cardinals and bishops would like it to be. Although the composition of the synod as a whole is depressing, at leadership level, there’s cause for hope. We now know that at least two of the Pope Francis’ group of eight cardinal advisers (Cardinals O’Malley and Gracias) have shown some degree of sensitivity or support for LGBT concerns, as well as a close friend and confidant of the pope (Cardinal Hummes). We can know add to that list, one of three co-presidents of the synod.
This does not mean that there will be any meaningful change coming directly out of the synod, next month. The chances of that are zero. What will happen though, is the start of more constructive, realistic discussion on these matters, which will likely lead to gradual, incremental change over time, initially in pastoral practice rather than formal doctrine.

Related articles

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Catholic_Church, Marriage / family, Pastoral Ministry

Senior Bishop: “Catholic Church Must Welcome ‘Unconventional Couples’

Leave a comment

ROME — The Catholic Church should make “unconventional couples” feel at home instead of making them targets of “de facto discrimination,” the leader of the Italian Bishops Conference and an ally of Pope Francis said this week.

“Couples in irregular matrimonial situations are also Christians, but they are sometimes looked upon with prejudice,” said Bishop Nunzio Galantino, an apparent reference to divorced and remarried Catholics.

“The burden of exclusion from the sacraments is an unjustified price to pay, in addition to de facto discrimination,” he said Wednesday (Aug. 27) in an address to a national conference on liturgy in the Italian hill town of Orvieto.

– full report at  The Washington Post.

Bishop Galantino’s thoughts are important, as he is the head of the Italian bishops’ conference, a post for which he was hand picked by Pope Francis himself. It is inevitable that his voice will be influential at the October Family Synod in Rome. In this interview, he seems to have been referring specifically to divorced and remarried Catholics, or to unmarried couples, but his observations are equally applicable to same – sex couples, especially as this is not the first time he has spoken along these lines. Back in May, he was specific about the need for the Church to take up a more progressive path, including a stronger welcome for gay Catholics:

The Catholic Church should listen to all the arguments in favour of gay relationships, Communion for remarried divorcees, and ending mandatory celibacy for priests, a senior Italian bishops has insisted.

The secretary-general of the Italian bishops’ conference (CEI), Nunzio Galantino, bishop of the southern diocese of Cassano all’Jonio, told the Florence-based La Nazione newspaper yesterday that he wanted church leaders to open their mind to different views on these issues.

He said: “My wish for the Italian Church is that it is able to listen without any taboo to the arguments in favour of married priests, the Eucharist for the divorced, and homosexuality.”

– Tablet News, 13th May 2014

A few years ago, I reported that Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna had suggested that it was time for the Catholic Church to stop obsessing over the genital acts of gay people, and instead focus on the quality of their relationships, and also to consider welcoming those divorced people who want to remarry in church, at a time when so many other couples have no desire to marry at all. He was the first to voice such thoughts on same – sex couples, but when the expected reprimand from Pope Benedict, or a pushback from more conservative colleagues simply did not come, a handful of other bishops soon followed with similar sentiments. Later, this early handful became a trickle, then a steady stream. Just in the past month, for instance, Bondings 2.0 has reported on a call by yet another cardinal, said to be “close to the pope”,  for more openness in the Church to lesbians and gays, and also on a wish by an Indian lay leader for the October synod to “bring LGBT people in from the cold“. The gathering mood for reform is by no means limited to Europe and North America.

Meanwhile, the question of a welcome in church for divorced and remarried Catholics has become a major theme for the upcoming family synod. If indeed the synod finds a way, or prepares to find a way, to offer a more authentic welcome for such couples, sooner or later it must follow that a similar, more authentic welcome for LGBT Catholics must also be found. The issues after all, are similar.

Related articles

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...