Perhaps it is a Sign of Armageddon, and there are those who would argue it is, or perhaps it is symptomatic of a Church that, however slowly and ponderously, is moving into the current century. Or maybe – if one adheres to such ideas – it is divine revelation through an enlightened Pope but, regardless of its origins, the recent announcement from the General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops that homosexuals may have an unique gift to give to the Church is a revelation.
The previous Pope, Benedict XVI, the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, caused quite a stir, at least within the LGBTQ community and amongst supportive liberals when, in his then-capacity as head of the Congregation for The Doctrine of The Faith, he issued an official statement stating that homosexuality was "intrinsically disordered" and a "grave depravity" incompatible with a Catholic way of life.
The statement, as I recall, was part or was to be part of the catechism of the Catholic Church and had the effect of being, in essence, ‘official policy’. It was a particularly nasty and condemnatory piece of work. It certainly coloured my own perceptions of Cardinal Ratzinger and, later, Benedict XVI as a cold, doctrinaire individual who existed in a realm of policy and ‘Church teachings’, and totally out of touch with anything approaching humanity or compassion and love for his fellow beings. Neither position was the whole picture. There is no doubt more to the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI/Joseph Ratzinger than what his public persona would have us believe.
Pope Francis I, on the other hand, quickly established his pontificate to be quite different from the previous one. A far more outreaching, caring, compassionate and, dare I say, even loving one. He appears to have gone out of his way to reach out to the disenfranchised, including the LGBTQ community or, more specifically, to gay men. Early in his pontificate, during a media scrum aboard the Papal plane, he stated it was not up to him to judge homosexuality. He appeared to be distancing himself from his predecessor’s position, both as a sexual entity as well as a cultural and social one.
This declaration from the Synod, which caused some of the more conservative bishops within it to predictably throw a fit, really doesn’t amount to much. It may be somewhat indicative of a growing awareness within the Church that homosexuality, and therefore homosexuals (by which the esteemed Fathers usually mean gay men – like Queen Victoria it is reported they have once said they simply cannot imagine what lesbians do, and so lesbianism is rarely considered – it’s all about sodomy and the other things gay men do with each other) should be respected and treated better by the Church. It does not mean, however, the Church doesn’t continue to see what we do as a ‘grave sin’ and ‘against the natural order’.
Even under Benedict and previous popes the state of being homosexual was not a sin; it was acting on it. That has not changed.
What did the Synod say about homosexuality then? In Part III of the official document of Synod 14 - Eleventh General Assembly entitled Relatio post disceptationem, beginning at paragraph 50, it states:
Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community. Are we capable of providing for these people, guaranteeing [...] them [...] a place of fellowship in our communities? Oftentimes, they want to encounter a Church which offers them a welcoming home. Are our communities capable of this, accepting and valuing their sexual orientation, without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?
The question of homosexuality requires serious reflection on how to devise realistic approaches to affective growth, human development and maturation in the Gospel, while integrating the sexual aspect, all of which constitute an important educative challenge. Moreover, the Church affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same level as marriage between man and woman. Nor is it acceptable that the pastor’s outlook be pressured or that international bodies make financial aid dependent on the introduction of regulations based on gender ideology.
Without denying the moral problems associated with homosexual unions, there are instances where mutual assistance to the point of sacrifice is a valuable support in the life of these persons. Furthermore, the Church pays special attention to [...] children who live with same-sex couples and stresses that the needs and rights of the little ones must always be given priority.
This is what caused the uproar amongst conservatives in general and conservative Catholics specifically; the suggestion that homosexuals could possibly possess "gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community" and that the Church should "accept and value" a homosexual orientation. To even suggest, as it does in paragraph 51, any accommodation is an ‘educative challenge’ for the Church. To conservatives homosexuality was a sin. Full stop. It was not up to the Church to educate itself around homosexuality, it was up to the homosexual to turn from sin and embrace the Church. Paragraph 51 seemed to be suggesting the Church not only needed to learn and adapt but to "integrate the sexual aspect" in that process. Good Lord!
This was all balanced out, with pressure from conservative bishops it has been rumoured, by reinforcing that such acceptance of homosexuals does not and cannot be on the same level as the acceptance of truly married heterosexual couples. In other words, the Church continues to reject the whole idea of ‘equal marriage’ and, while appearing to accept the ‘union’ of two people of the same sex as "a valuable support in the life of these persons", flat out refuses to see it as being on the same level as a marriage between a man and a woman. No surprises there.
The section isn’t particularly radical or extraordinary, at least not to those who live outside the confines of the Vatican walls (and here I refer not just to the physical parameters of Vatican City but to the emotional walls surrounding the cardinals, archbishops and bishops who follow the dictates of the Vatican). There is a perceptual difference between those who look at the issues from outside the circle those walls make up and those who examine them from inside.
A friend of mine years ago repeatedly tried to enter a variety of monasteries. He felt called to be – not a priest – a monk. He was particularly attracted to the Franciscans, although at one point he did join a Dominican order. He never got beyond the postulant stage and was repeatedly rejected as ‘unfit’. To his credit he was always openly gay during his novitiate, believing he could be so while still accepting the requirement to be chaste and celibate. The various abbots and Superiors did not see it that way.
This individual was an intelligent, loving, gentle soul – someone any order should have welcomed. His orientation should have been recognized and accepted as any other aspect of his personhood. This is what the Synod statement seems to also now be saying, that gay men (and it is assumed lesbians) can bring to the Church our unique perspective. It is because of our gayness that we hold an unique perspective and approach and this is something that should be honoured and welcomed, not vilified and rejected as has so often been the case in not just the Catholic Church but within society itself.
Western society has made some major advancements in recent years in its acceptance of homosexuality. The Church, on the other hand, is a ponderous thing when it comes to change. It does evolve, but at a much slower rate than the society around it. Perhaps this Synod has heralded the minute beginnings of change in regards to homosexuality. If so, it is a tiny droplet into the Church sea, but even a small drop can ripple a process of change.
