CONFUSING DIVERSITY WITH PERVERSITY by Gary L. Morella
As a Roman Catholic member of the research faculty of a major university, as an observer of the bombardment of articles in my faculty and student papers by a radical fringe group promoting gay "pride" and gay lifestyles, I feel eminently qualified to make the following statements.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there is no pride involved in being inclined to a grave moral disorder, regardless of whether the act is committed or not.
Universities have confused "diversity" with "perversity" in their providing for the legitimacy of homosexual lifestyles by blatantly promoting same as a part of their multicultural/diversity agenda. "Sexual orientation" does NOT, I repeat does NOT, constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc., in respect to nondiscrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern. To force the acceptability of such perverse lifestyles under the umbrella of a misplaced compassion, better defined as a pseudo-compassion (reference the writings of Malcolm Muggeridge), is anathema to what the founding fathers intended. America was settled, primarily, to get away from a "state established religion", e.g., England, where freedom "of", not "from" religion was the tenet to be held in the new world. For a state university to force the acceptability of lifestyles by their employees whose religions expressly condemn it is un-American in the extreme and most certainly unconstitutional. This is not what our countrymen died for in all of the wars fought for America. This is not the American ideal but rather the insidious example of the establishment of a "new state religion," the non-religion of "secularism" which preaches the lie that all truth is relative, totally ignoring the Natural Law and the Decalogue. For a university receiving state funds to promote such an agenda to the exclusion of the opposition of a large segment of its community who, on religious grounds recognized by the Constitution, cannot support same is coercion in the strongest sense and against the basic principles upon which this country was founded. And if this continues, these same universities will have no one to blame but themselves for any forthcoming litigation, which might be considered to once again make public policy a function of "sanity" as opposed to the intimidation of a radical minority. This litigation would challenge the concept that sexual orientation is on a par with race, ethnic background, etc., pertaining to matters of nondiscrimination when it most certainly has never been held as such through time immemorial in the Judeo/Christian tradition.
And please don't infer by this letter that I'm a "homophobe". I maintain that being gay or having a homosexual orientation is not natural. I don't hate anyone. I'm interested in telling that truth which is showing the ultimate charity to gays, not letting them live the lie that the lifestyle that they are living is normal. It is sad that "gay", a word that has been historically associated with happiness, has been bastardized for political purposes. There are wonderful groups like COURAGE and EXODUS that are making heroic attempts to provide support to gays. I applaud their efforts. What I object to is the propagandizing of the gay lifestyle whether active homosexually or not as being an alternative lifestyle in the sense of heterosexual. Where I coming from you will soon find out if you read what follows objectively. In short, I believe that the inclination, not just the act, is disordered. We are giving the means to overcome these difficulties if we but trust in Someone who suffered much for us. What we're dealing with is a tragedy of epidemic proportions because people are buying into lies. There is even an Australian study, which documents that the "pleasure" of the act outweighs the consequences in the minds of many gays.
I once told someone that I could make it without God, without going to Church.
They said "lots of luck." They were right. You can't count on yourself alone to overcome the problems awaiting you without support. I conjecture that gays need that because, if not, they will inevitably succumb to the example of the majority and the question of being able to leave chaste lives will become moot. (By the way, you will see below that I make no distinction between homosexuals or heterosexuals in terms of being called to lives of heroic chastity, which is only possible, by the Grace of God.)
The bid to raise homosexual union to the level of the institution of marriage is a challenge to common sense, reason, and law. One unique model has been universally recognized for marriage down through the ages, which contracted between a man and a woman. Any other model would be a deviation, a moral and juridical disorder.
In regard to guarantees that employers could not discriminate against homosexuals in their hiring policy, such assurances for homosexuals cannot accurately be classified as "rights," since rights must be based on justice and truth. Homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, and thus cannot be aligned with justice or with truth.
"Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'HOMOSEXUAL ACTS ARE INTRINSICALLY DISORDERED.' THEY ARE CONTRARY TO THE NATURAL LAW. THEY CLOSE THE SEXUAL ACT TO THE GIFT OF LIFE. THEY DO NOT PROCEED FROM A GENUINE AFFECTIVE AND SEXUAL COMPLEMENTARITY. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN THEY BE APPROVED." [Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2357.]
There is nothing new about the human tendency to employ euphemisms to conceal what is being talked about. Taxes become "revenue enhancements" or "investments," pilfering becomes "occult compensation," abortion becomes "termination of a pregnancy" or an airy abstraction, a "choice." And sexual perverts insist on calling themselves "gay."
A correct diagnosis must precede an effective cure, and that involves speaking honestly of the problem. It is perverse to pursue sexual pleasure with someone of the same sex. Over the past few decades, a propaganda blitz, aided and abetted by the media, has tried to make this self-evident truth into the quirky conviction of religious zealots. Politicians have colluded in this, pursuing votes at any cost, catering to the "homosexual community." Far more culpable has been the tendency of some theologians to condone and minimize serious sin by
waffling on the fact that homosexual acts are always gravely wrong.
Obfuscation has reached the college campuses and campaigns are waged against something called "homophobia," the net effect of which is to suggest that it is the judgment that homosexual acts are sinful that is sinful, not the acts themselves. In this effort, Scripture and magisterial documents are invoked as if they favored homosexuality. One has a Christian duty, it seems, not to state the Christian message on the matter. During campus campaigns to give recognition to homosexual organizations, no mention is ever made of the serious health dangers that follow homosexual activity – and this on "smoke-free" campuses. Now it is the consequences of the vice that dare not speak their name.
Lenience toward homosexuality is only an aspect of the Dionysian frenzy that characterizes talk of human sexuality. Human persons need the sane and saving doctrine of the Christian witness on homosexuality today more than ever. To give a stone where bread is asked for is unkind. The Church's mission is not to conform to the world, but to judge and save it.
One of the tragedies of our time is the tendency to encourage homosexuals in their self-deception. Are some people more susceptible than others to this vice? Even if this were so, it is important to acknowledge that everyone is susceptible to it and to every other vice. The moral alternative is not coed and premarital sexual activity with members of the opposite gender. Chastity is required, and possible, in either situation. The tendency to excuse and sanitize homosexual activity must be resisted, just as we should not romanticize infidelity, embezzling or grave robbing.
Homosexual activists are able to exploit the fact that most people are ignorant of what homosexuals actually do to one another. As in the abortion debate, where emotionless scientific terminology is used to cover up the horrible things being done to a little human being, homosexual activists employ a sanitized and deliberately misleading language to describe their practices, using to their advantage the willingness of most people to keep public debates clean. Sodomy is a pretty messy business, requiring elaborate preparations and lubrications, and its long term effects include not only AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, but also frequent rectal bleeding, often requiring the use of a tampon.
Homosexuality is a spiritual, moral and psychological disorder. It is also devastating to the health of those who engage in it. In order to see this, one must only consider the degrading acts in which homosexuals engage which are chiefly of three kinds: oral sex, rectal sex, and fecal sex. Since semen contains many of the germs carried in blood, oral sex comes close to the consumption of raw human blood with all its medical risks: hepatitis A, gonorrhea, HIV and hepatitis B. This practice is almost always involved in homosexual activity. Almost 90% of homosexuals engage in rectal sex allowing germs to penetrate the rectal wall, causing immunological damage and tearing and bruising of it, and gain almost direct access to the blood stream. This practice efficiently spreads hepatitis B, HIV, syphilis and many other diseases carried by the blood. A particularly repugnant variation on rectal sex is called "fisting," and involves the insertion of the hand and arm into the rectum! Upwards of 80% of homosexuals admit to participating in anal fecal sex ingesting, orally, medically significant amounts of feces with various diseases following on this. [MEDICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT HOMOSEXUALS DO, Family Research Institute, Inc., Box 2091, Washington, DC 20013.]
Monogamous relationships among homosexuals are rarities in the extreme as the vast majority of homosexuals admit to having many partners over the course of a lifetime. This statistic is conveniently ignored by a liberal media promoting "same-sex" marriages, a contradiction in terms, in their unabashed promoting of the homosexual agenda, which is that homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. Interestingly, this same liberal media exercises censorship of any discussion of the possible limits of the homosexual agenda, including the rights of religious groups, for example, not to employ people openly in violation of their official moral teachings, or the likely results of officially defining homosexuals as a favored minority. Where does this liberating derivative of the enlightenment stop? Do we promote pedophilia as the natural liberation of our children from the "outdated morals" of the religious persuasions of their parents such as advocated by the NATIONAL MAN/BOY LOVE ASSOCIATION, already declared a charity by the state of New York? Is bestiality OK for adolescents under some under some "wacko" interpretation of the first amendment by the ACLU agreed to by a judiciary that has lost its moral compass? Maybe we could limit it to "smaller animals for smaller people."
What is the difference between someone with homosexual tendencies, someone
married with adulterous tendencies, and someone unmarried with fornicating tendencies? All are called to be chaste within the various parameters of the definition of chastity given the situation. This is never easy. It is not realizable by man alone but rather a function of God's Grace that is realized through prayer alone. The key thing to remember, however, is that this is NOT an unrealizable goal with proper support from people willing to tell the truth instead of acquiescing to lies of convenience. [Reference THE COURAGE TO BE
CHASTE by Benedict Groeschel and the organization COURAGE, a Catholic ministry to homosexuals in accordance with the Magisterium of the Church. Similar Protestant organizations also exist, e.g. EXODUS]
Moreover, what is the difference between being born or acquiring homosexual tendencies (please note that no distinction is made whether or not homosexual genes exist albeit objective scientific literature has refuted all claims to date), and being born or acquiring MS, blindness, heart disease, or cancer? I would submit that those in the latter group have just as heavy if not heavier crosses to bear than those in the former. For the believers in both groups, there is the realization that this life is fleeting with the promise of sufferings endured by the faithful being rewarded in the next life which is eternal.
The Church speaks out because it is concerned with the supernatural as opposed to the natural. It sees the big picture despite the protestations of those whose lifestyles would suffer because of the clarity of it. Ergo, an acceptable level of interference called moral relativism is introduced to make a wrong, right.
We're living in a society that believes it is "immortal." We don't need God because pantheism reigns, we're all gods. We're all entitled to make the rules because we believe, like Jack Kevorkian, that total autonomy is the answer. We
can do anything, say anything we want as long as we don't infringe on the person or property of our neighbor. If that means redefining the family by introducing three sexes to the two of Genesis as was recently attempted at the U.N. women’s conference in Beijing, so be it. If the destruction of the family as the foundation of society results as it most assuredly would under this gender redefinition, so be it. If anarchy rules, so be it. Let's live for today. After all, we can do what we want just like the spoiled brat who ignores the warning of his parents and gets burned by getting too close to the stove. The world in its present state is getting too close to the stove. There is a warning being given by God through His Church. If it continues to be ignored, it will be to our eternal regret! And that is a truth that is not being proclaimed in many of our churches as it needs to be considering that said churches remain the last bastions of truth in a world gone mad.
In light of the Defense of Marriage Act, in particular, the amendments offered as to outlawing job discrimination against gays, I submit that there are areas where discrimination against sexual orientation is proper.
The following is a commentary on the passage of C-33, an act adding sexual orientation to the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The argument is made that C-33 gives gay and lesbian Canadians the same protection from discrimination in employment, accommodation and the provision of goods and services as all other Canadians. Nothing more, nothing less. It is my understanding that pre-existing Canadian law parallels the U.S. in this regard in that such protections are already built in, i.e., gays and lesbians come under the same protections as all other members of society.
The root of this argument is the false premise that "sexual orientation" constitutes a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc., in respect to nondiscrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder that evokes moral concern. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment. In particular, what about the rights of Judeo/Christian organizations to hire employees emulating their beliefs as opposed to bastardizing them? In short, where does freedom of religion come into the equation in Canada in regard to C-33? Moreover, since it is a fact that some homosexuals have changed and abandoned that lifestyle, they ought not to be included as a class under civil rights legislation designed to protect blacks, women and the disabled from discrimination. Such laws were written because of a person's status, which CANNOT change. Homosexual practice is about behavior, which CAN change.
A member of the Canadian House of Commons stated that "after all, a society is judged by how it treats minorities." It is for precisely this reason that the Church is so concerned with the propagation of the lie that the homosexual lifestyle is a viable alternative to the heterosexual. To not speak out on this matter would be to abrogate a responsibility of love for the Faithful in the same manner as ignoring the abortion holocaust or acquiescing to euthanasia. I would submit that a society is judged by how it treats everyone from conception to natural death.
Homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.
It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law. But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase. Where does it end? Do we pass special rights laws prohibiting discrimination of those practicing pedophilia such as the National Man/Boy Love Association? How about legislation prohibiting the discrimination of bestiality? Just where does it end?
Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons, including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity. Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but also obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but also even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus, it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.
Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.
I would also submit that the accelerated suicide rates and psychological oppression suffered by homosexuals used as an argument for the promotion of sexual orientation as a right is debunked by the objective as opposed to the "politically correct" literature. Reference HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE POLITICS OF TRUTH by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., Hamewith Books a division of Baker Books, Grand Rapids MI. (Dr. Satinover has practiced psychoanalysis and psychiatry for more than nineteen years. He is a former Fellow in Psychiatry and Child Psychiatry at Yale University and a past president of the C.G. Jung Foundation. He holds degrees from MIT, the University of Texas, and Harvard University.) The circular arguments and self-serving explanations for homosexual distress are clearly exposed. It is shown that in spite of its superficial plausibility and the activists' repeated claims, NO studies, I repeat, NO studies support the hypothesis that the social disapproval of homosexuality causes any of the high levels of internal distress in homosexuals--even long before AIDS. I highly recommend the Satinover book which does not deal with hate or emotionalism but rather with cold, hard, incontrovertible scientific facts that are not easily refuted.
You don't even have to be a believer to see the fallacy of "special rights for gays." Unbelievers seeing the truth of the natural law can recognize the holes in that argument. If there isn't a natural law, as is suggested by an "I'm OK, you're OK morally relativistic mentality, then answer the question posed by the
following scenario presented to first year theology students.
Just what do you appeal to if someone would come into your office with an Uzi and say, "I'm going to blow you away?" You respond by saying "you can't do that, that would not be right." Your attacker responds by saying "it's right for me, it will give me pleasure to kill you." You respond "the police will arrest you." The attacker says, "not before I shoot you." You respond, "I have a gun, too." Your attacker says, "mine is already pointed at you." Without any absolute law, without any sense of the absolute truth of the natural law of an Almighty God marked on our minds with the knowledge of His will, a knowledge which is part of our rational nature, you're in a real dilemma. You can't appeal to anything, least of all the "relativistic values" of your attacker.
I have some further questions which need to be considered in any future debate on this issue. If organizations grant "domestic partner" benefits to unmarried heterosexuals living together in "long-term committed relationships," how can such "long term relationships" be verified? If not, how can said organizations discriminate against this group in favor of giving similar benefits to gays in the name of inclusivity? How do you reconcile the Church's concern that the message sent by providing such benefits to gays is the equating of homosexual lifestyles with heterosexual - a principle condemned by the Roman Catholic Church? [Reference THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUALS by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.] In other words, what happens to freedom of religion in such an inclusive society as why should the hard earned tax monies of the citizenry be used, counter to the tenets of the faith of the vast majority of said citizens, to promote perversity under an umbrella of diversity? If it's not "special rights" we're talking about, then what is it? Gays have the same rights as anyone else. What they don't have is the right to ram their "lifestyles" down the throats of the rest of us as acceptable as has been the case in school systems across North America. That heinous lie will never go unchallenged. There is no inalienable right to perversity. Where is that in government constitutions? Same sex marriage, for example, is a contradiction in terms. That is why it's being rightfully challenged, for the pure and simple reason that it is a deviant, unnatural lifestyle as evidenced by the fact that, if it was the norm, the human race would have died out long before sexual orientation would have been confused with civil rights. Nations would have been unable to reproduce themselves. Interestingly enough, that is the exact problem that exists today as a result of contracepting and aborting entire generations into oblivion - marching to the population problem lie promulgated by International Planned Parenthood at recent U.N. conferences.
Isn't it sad when the main concern at the aforementioned U.N. Conferences is the addition of three sexes to the two of Genesis, destroying forever the concept of the family, the very foundation of society, as opposed to condemning forced abortion, female genitalia mutilation, and the cannibalization of fetuses occurring in China and third world countries? Isn't is sad when the holocaust of all holocausts, the killing of millions of unborn infants, is promoted as opposed to being condemned by the U.N. under pressure mainly from the United States, the European Union, and Canada? And finally, isn't it sad when the leader of the free world totally ignores the testimony before both houses of his congress by medical, ethical, and judicial experts as to the unnecessary nature of the hideous, barbaric, procedure known as partial birth abortion, and
legalizes INFANTICIDE? If parents are allowed to murder their unwanted children, how long will it be before children will be allowed to murder their unwanted parents who have been judged as becoming a burden to society in their old age?
We've long since crossed lines that were never meant to be crossed recognizing the truth of an absolute, natural law written on the hearts of man by a loving God. To ignore that law by capitulating to the lie of a morally relativistic code of secular norms where "I'm OK, you're OK" becomes the only commandment begs paying the piper at some future date. That is not the brave new world that I want for my children or anyone else’s because it denies that our freedom depends on the mind and will of God. It is no longer freedom but slavery to claim that we can use our reason and free will to decide what is right or wrong independent of God's manifest will in human nature and divine revelation. It is the death knell of authentic human freedom becoming, ultimately, the harbinger of final eternal death.
Please see the addendum which is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church on homosexuality. By forcing Roman Catholics at this university and statewide to support lifestyles which are anathema to their Faith by providing so-called "domestic partner" benefits at tax payers expense, Penn State would be in violation of the freedom of religion clause under the Constitution, a situation that a university receiving state funding would want to avoid, it seems to me.
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL
PERSONS
1. The issue of homosexuality and the moral evaluation of homosexual acts have increasingly become a matter of public debate, even in Catholic circles. Since this debate often advances arguments and makes assertions inconsistent with the teaching of the Catholic Church, it is quite rightly a cause for concern to all engaged in the pastoral ministry, and this Congregation has judged it to be of sufficiently grave and widespread importance to address to the Bishops of the Catholic Church this Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.
2. Naturally, an exhaustive treatment of this complex issue cannot be attempted here, but we will focus our reflection within the distinctive context of the Catholic moral perspective. It is a perspective which finds support in the more secure findings of the natural sciences, which have their own legitimate and proper methodology and field of inquiry.
However, the Catholic moral viewpoint is founded on human reason illumined by faith and is consciously motivated by the desire to do the will of God our Father. The Church is thus in a position to learn from scientific discovery but also to transcend the horizons of science and to be confident that her more global vision does greater justice to the rich reality of the human person in his spiritual and physical dimensions, created by God and heir, by grace, to eternal life.
It is within this context, then, that it can be clearly seen that the phenomenon of homosexuality, complex as it is, and with its many consequences for society and ecclesial life, is a proper focus for the Church's pastoral care. It thus requires of her ministers attentive study, active concern and honest, theologically well-balanced counsel.
3. Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation's "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being "intrinsically disordered", and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, 4).
In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good.
**************************************************************************
Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.
**************************************************************************
4. An essential dimension of authentic pastoral care is the identification of causes of confusion regarding the Church's teaching. One is a new exegesis of Sacred Scripture which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life. These views are gravely erroneous and call for particular attention here.
5. It is quite true that the Biblical literature owes to the different epochs in which it was written a good deal of its varied patterns of thought and expression (Dei Verbum 12). The Church today addresses the Gospel to a world which differs in many ways from ancient days. But the world in which the New Testament was written was already quite diverse from the situation in which the Sacred Scriptures of the Hebrew People had been written or compiled, for example.
What should be noticed is that, in the presence of such remarkable diversity, there is nevertheless a clear consistency within the Scriptures themselves on the moral issue of homosexual behaviour. The Church's doctrine regarding this
issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony. The community of faith today, in unbroken continuity with the Jewish and Christian communities
within which the ancient Scriptures were written, continues to be nourished by
those same Scriptures and by the Spirit of Truth whose Word they are. It is likewise essential to recognize that the Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church's living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition.
The Vatican Council II in Dei Verbum 10, put it this way: "It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls". In that spirit we wish to outline briefly the Biblical teaching here.
6. Providing a basic plan for understanding this entire discussion of homosexuality is the theology of creation we find in Genesis. God, in his infinite wisdom and love, brings into existence all of reality as a reflection of his goodness. He fashions mankind, male and female, in his own image and likeness. Human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in a striking way in their cooperation with him in the transmission of life by a mutual donation of the self to the other.
In Genesis 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each other. The human body retains its "spousal significance" but this is now clouded by sin. Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgment made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.
Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.
In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.
7. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.
To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.
As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.
8. Thus, the Church's teaching today is in organic continuity with the Scriptural perspective and with her own constant Tradition. Though today's world is in many ways quite new, the Christian community senses the profound and lasting bonds which join us to those generations who have gone before us, "marked with the sign of faith".
Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.
The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will
not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.
9. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual
behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.
There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.
The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.
10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.
But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.
11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.
Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace.
12. What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian's suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for all who follow Christ.
It is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control" (5:22) and further (v. 24), "You cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires."
It is easily misunderstood, however, if it is merely seen as a pointless effort at self-denial. The Cross is a denial of self, but in service to the will of God himself who makes life come from death and empowers those who trust in him to practice virtue in place of vice.
To celebrate the Paschal Mystery, it is necessary to let that Mystery become imprinted in the fabric of daily life. To refuse to sacrifice one's own will in obedience to the will of the Lord is effectively to prevent salvation. Just as the Cross was central to the expression of God's redemptive love for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of self-giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens to destroy them.
Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God's personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord's grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.
13. We recognize, of course, that in great measure the clear and successful communication of the Church's teaching to all the faithful, and to society at large, depends on the correct instruction and fidelity of her pastoral ministers. The Bishops have the particularly grave responsibility to see to it that their assistants in the ministry, above all the priests, are rightly
informed and personally disposed to bring the teaching of the Church in its integrity to everyone.
The characteristic concern and good will exhibited by many clergy and religious in their pastoral care for homosexual persons is admirable, and, we hope, will not diminish. Such devoted ministers should have the confidence that they are faithfully following the will of the Lord by encouraging the homosexual person to lead a chaste life and by affirming that person's God-given dignity and worth.
14. With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one's conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word "Catholic" to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way.
15. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.
We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church's position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.
An authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer, witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters,
without deluding them or isolating them.
16. From this multi-faceted approach there are numerous advantages to be gained, not the least of which is the realization that a homosexual person, as every human being, deeply needs to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously.
The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and
difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.
17. In bringing this entire matter to the Bishops' attention, this Congregation wishes to support their efforts to assure that the teaching of the Lord and his Church on this important question be communicated fully to all the faithful.
In light of the points made above, they should decide for their own dioceses the
extent to which an intervention on their part is indicated. In addition, should they consider it helpful, further coordinated action at the level of their National Bishops' Conference may be envisioned.
In a particular way, we would ask the Bishops to support, with the means at their disposal, the development of appropriate forms of pastoral care for homosexual persons. These would include the assistance of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church.
They are encouraged to call on the assistance of all Catholic theologians who, by teaching what the Church teaches, and by deepening their reflections on the
true meaning of human sexuality and Christian marriage with the virtues it engenders, will make an important contribution in this particular area of pastoral care.
The Bishops are asked to exercise special care in the selection of pastoral ministers so that by their own high degree of spiritual and personal maturity and by their fidelity to the Magisterium, they may be of real service to homosexual persons, promoting their health and well-being in the fullest sense.
Such ministers will reject theological opinions which dissent from the teaching of the Church and which, therefore, cannot be used as guidelines for pastoral care.
We encourage the Bishops to promote appropriate catechetical programmes based on the truth about human sexuality in its relationship to the family as taught by the Church. Such programmes should provide a good context within which to deal with the question of homosexuality.
This catechesis would also assist those families of homosexual persons to deal with this problem which affects them so deeply.
All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous.
In assessing proposed legislation, the Bishops should keep as their uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and promote family life.
18. The Lord Jesus promised, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set
you free" (Jn. 8:32). Scripture bids us speak the truth in love (cf. Eph. 4:15). The God who is at once truth and love calls the Church to minister to every man, woman and child with the pastoral solicitude of our compassionate Lord. It is in this spirit that we have addressed this Letter to the Bishops of the Church, with the hope that it will be of some help as they care for those whose suffering can only be intensified by error and lightened by truth.
(During an audience granted to the undersigned Prefect, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, approved this Letter, adopted in an ordinary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ordered it to be published.)
Given at Rome, 1 October 1986.
JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER
Prefect
ALBERTO BOVONE
Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Numidia
Secretary