WHAT'S WRONG WITH "ALWAYS OUR CHILDREN"
by Gary L. Morella
n reviewing a NCCB meeting via EWTN reports, I observed the Bishop
of Phoenix applauding the efforts of the Committee responsible for "Always Our
Children" with only Bishop Bruskewitz of Lincoln NE taking the podium in
opposition by questioning President Pilla as to clarification that this
document came from a committee and does not represent the mind of the NCCB in
total. The answer was confirmation that AOC was the work of a committee
solely and did not represent the position of the NCCB on this issue.
Gary L. Morella
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US Bishops and the Gay Agenda
A surprise pastoral letter delighted the activists who work for acceptance of
homosexual behavior, and dismayed the therapists who help troubled individuals
trying to avoid it.
by Philip F. Lawler, Editor of CATHOLIC WORLD REPORT
During the first week in October, Pope John Paul II was jetting to Rio de
Janeiro, where he would exhort a congregation estimated at 1.5 million to do
everything in their power to protect the strength of the family. Other
speakers at the three-day family encounter in Rio had warned that the family is
under assault, from forces that include the advocates of legalized divorce,
abortion, and homosexuality.
During that same week, hundreds of thousands of American men were making their
way to Washington DC, where they would participate in a mass prayer rally
staged by Promise Keepers, an organization dedicated to helping men become
better husbands and fathers. The men who attended the Promise Keepers rally -
again, coincidentally, estimated at about 1.5 million - heard speakers argue
that the negligence of fathers has allowed the breakdown of American family
life, as illustrated by the rise of divorce, abortion, and homosexuality.
That same first week in October was the time the US bishops chose to release a
pastoral message, aimed at parents of homosexual children. While the millions
gathered in Rio and in Washington heard homosexuality described as a grave and
immediate threat, the fundamental message put forth by the National Conference
of Catholic Bishops (NCCB) was that the parents of active homosexuals should be
calm.
Predictable news coverage
In an AP report on the bishops' message, reporter David Briggs offered a
one-sentence summary: "The US Catholic bishops are advising parents of
homosexual children to put love and support of sons and daughters before Church
doctrine that condemns homosexual activity." That same message, in slightly
varied forms, filtered out through the secular media to the millions of
Catholic Americans who will never read the actual text of the bishops'
statement.
Strictly speaking, that AP summary could be criticized as misleading. The
bishops' statement, "Always Our Children," does not urge parents to overlook
the Church's teachings on homosexuality, and in fact those teachings are
repeated in the pastoral message; defenders of the document could, and did,
point to passages which uphold the Catholic tradition. But David Briggs - a
veteran reporter who specializes in religious affairs - had indeed captured the
general flavor of the document. The accuracy of his analysis can be confirmed
either through a careful reading of the document [see enclosure] or,
indirectly, through the reactions of the people most directly involved in the
struggle for and against acceptance of homosexuality.
The risk that the bishop's statement might be taken as indirect support for
homosexual activists was certainly not an unanticipated one. In 1996, the
administrative committee of the NCCB had reviewed a preliminary draft of the
document, prepared by the bishops' Committee on Marriage and Family, and sent
it back for revisions. Specifically, the administrative committee had called
for the inclusion of a preamble that would make it clear that "Always Our
Children" was not an endorsement of homosexual activities.
Faithful to their brief, the Committee on Marriage and Family (chartered by
Bishop Thomas O'Brien of Phoenix) added a two-sentence disclaimer; "This
message is not intended for advocacy purposes or to serve a particular agenda.
It is not to be understood as an endorsement of what some call a 'homosexual
lifestyle.'" Evidently that was enough to satisfy the administrative
committee, which approved the document for publication.
No encouragement for therapy
"Always Our Children (AOC) is addressed primarily to parents who have learned
that their children are homosexual. The bishops' message begins with a
recognition that these parents will probably be experiencing emotional turmoil,
and lists some of the feelings that might afflict them: confusion, relief,
anger, mourning, fear, guilt, and even pride. AOC does not mention that
parental fears could include the fear that a child is living in grave sin, and
may be developing a pattern of such sin.
AOC urges parents to offer their children unequivocal love and support,
irrespective of their homosexual orientation. The document discusses the
causes that might lead to that orientation, and - without citing scientific
evidence - leans toward the controversial conclusion that some people may be
naturally inclined toward homosexuality from birth.
In a list of "pastoral recommendations" to parents and to pastors, AOC suggests
counseling, but avoids any recommendation of therapy aimed at eliminating the
homosexual orientation. The bishops' message urges priests: "Maintain a list
of agencies, community groups, and counselors or other experts to whom you can
refer homosexual persons or their parents and family members when they ask you
for specialized assistance." But AOC itself does not list any such resources.
For organizations which emphasize therapy for homosexuals, that omission was a
serious blow. Groups such as COURAGE (an organization dedicated to helping
Catholics live chaste lives in the face of homosexual temptations) and the
National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) issued
polite but pointed responses to AOC, wondering aloud why the bishops had
ignored the best available hope for addressing the homosexual condition. The
NARTH statement suggested:
It would seem more helpful to inform parents and the public in general
of the wonderful news that therapy for the prevention and treatment of
same-sex attraction is available and that the prognosis is positive. A
survey of 285 psychoanalysts, with 1275 homosexual clients/patients
found that over one-third reported a successful change to
heterosexuality and over 85% reported a vast improvement in their
condition.
On the other hand, the bishops' failure to recommend such therapy came as
welcome news to homosexual activists. In Washington, DC, a gay community
newspaper called the BLADE cited Father Robert Nugent of New Ways Ministries,
whose persistent criticism of Church teaching has made him the subject of a
Vatican investigation: "In the face of reparative therapists and some Catholic
ministers...who deny there is homosexual orientation, the bishops are affirming
this reality and asking parents to accept that reality in their children."
"Wait and See"
Traditional Catholic Groups were shocked by the bishops' suggestion that
parents of youngsters engaged in homosexual experimentation should adopt a
"wait and see" policy. "In our opinion nothing could be more dangerous,"
replied NARTH. "Same-sex attraction is a symptom of an underlying problem
which requires attention." And COURAGE added: "Given the epidemic of sexually
transmitted diseases, including HIV disease, among male homosexuals, advising
parents to adopt a 'wait and see attitude' to same-sex experimentation among
adolescents is an invitation to tragedy."
Again, advocates of the "gay-rights" approach took an opposite view. Sister
Jeannine Gramick, Father Nugent's colleague in New Ways Ministry, told the
NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER that the bishops' message was "very pastoral, very
compassionate." And in answer to those who worried that parents were being
asked to overlook serious sin, Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit added: "No
parent should feel compelled to make a judgment about the state of grace of his
or her child."
While therapists worried that AOC might discourage parents from using their
services, other groups were delighted to find pastoral recommendations that
would bolster their efforts to enhance the profile of homosexuals within the
Church. AOC encourages priests to speak frankly about homosexuality, for
instance, and condemns discrimination against homosexuals. With obvious relish,
Father Nugent pointed out to the NATIONAL CATHOLIC REPORTER that one American
bishop had recently refused to give his approval for a retreat designed for the
parents of homosexuals - an activity which is specifically recommended in AOC.
It may be more than a coincidence that Father Nugent's views matched those
expressed in AOC. The REPORTER story identified the controversial priest as a
consultant to the bishops in the preparation of the pastoral message.
Following a standard policy, the NCCB did not identify the author(s) of the
message, nor did AOC include a list of people whose opinions had been sought by
the bishops' committee.
AOC did not include a bibliography of Church documents regarding homosexuality,
and that list included the 1986 statement by the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith, on "Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons." But nowhere in the
text does AOC cite that Vatican document. In its response to the bishops'
pastoral message, COURAGE pointed out that the Vatican statement had left no
doubt that homosexuality "is 'objectively disordered,' because it urges a
person, not toward the inherent good of marriage and procreation, but toward
sinful conduct." That crucial message can be found NOWHERE in the American
bishops' latest statement. As Women for Faith and Family noted in a forceful
public statement, AOC "seems to have deliberately set out to muddy the waters
the Vatican had made clear in 1986."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The critique below applied to the original version of Always Our Children.
READING BETWEEN THE LINES
A careful look at the bishops' pastoral message
In the following analysis of "Always Our Children," the passages in quotes
are taken directly from the document. The comments following are from Catholic
World Report (CWR).
The comments following the CWR statements are those of Gary Morella denoted
- glm.
"This message is not intended for advocacy purposes or to serve a particular
agenda. It is not to be understood as an endorsement of what some call a
'homosexual lifestyle'".
In the preamble of the message, the suspicion of gay advocacy is raised in the
very statement with which it is denied. Why would the bishops feel compelled
to say that the message is 'not intended for advocacy purposes,' if not for the
suspicions that it would be USED for such purposes? And if it was predictable
that the document would be used by groups hostile to the Church, was it prudent
to go ahead with publication? So the use of the equivocating phrase "what some
may call the homosexual lifestyle" can only be seen as a deliberate effort to
distance the bishops from those who use the phrase - including the therapists
who seek to help people escape from that lifestyle.
"You [parents of children engaged in homosexual activities] experience a
tension between loving your child as God's precious creation and not wanting to
endorse any behavior you know the Church teaches is wrong."
The document does not affirm that "God has forbidden" homosexual activities,
but rather that "the Church teaches" that such activities are wrong. A clear
invocation of God's law would leave no doubts as to the permanence of the
teaching; the sentence as it stands leaves open the prospect that the Church
might change her teaching.
This is the modus operandi of the dissenters, i.e., implying that a teaching
which they disagree with is that of the Church as a function of the current
occupant of the Chair of Peter. - glm
"Our message speaks of accepting yourself, your beliefs and values, your
questions and all you may be struggling with at the moment."
What does it mean to "accept" ones own beliefs and values? Is it not the duty
of bishops to help people recognize which of their beliefs are objectively
WRONG?
This sounds suspiciously like the secular gospel, "I'm OK, you're OK, the
refrain of the autonomous unencumbered self whose limitless freedom must,
in fact, demands to be recognized for the sake of his/her self-esteem which
cannot, God forbid, ever be allowed to reach a critical low state because of
confrontation with the perfect truth that is Jesus Christ. Better to have
high self esteem and go to Hell than to humbly acknowledge your faults for
your eternal salvation. - glm
"Because some of you might be swept up in a tide of emotions, we focus first on
feelings. Although the gift of human sexuality can be a great mystery at
times, the Church's teaching on homosexuality is clear. However, because the
terms of that teaching have now become very personal in regard to your son or
daughter, you be may feel confused and conflicted."
Here the document jumps back and forth between the languages of popular culture
and of theology - to the detriment of the latter. It is not clear why the
specific application of a general Church teaching should produce confusion and
conflict, unless of course the individual is disposed to question the Church
teaching.
The Church's teaching is fine as long as it doesn't apply to you. Better pick
the teachings best suited to you in the cafeteria. After all, we wouldn't want
to offend your sensibilities by, perish the thought, asking you to make a
sacrifice like your Lord and Savior did on Calvary. - glm
"ANGER: You may be feeling deceived or manipulated by your son or daughter.
You could be angry with your spouse, blaming him or her for 'making the child
this way' - especially if there has been a difficult parent-child relationship.
You might be angry with yourself for not recognizing indications of
homosexuality."
Notably absent from this list is anger at bishops and priests for not doing
more to help one's child resist the ambient culture.
In particular, anger for not recognizing the evil in this document for what it
is by allowing it to be published with the implied imprimatur of the NCCB. -
glm
"The Christian Life is a journey marked by perseverance and prayer. It is a
path leading from where we are to where we know God is calling us."
But isn't this precisely why most parents are distraught at gay children:
because they know that God is calling them to another way of life?
There is a veiled implication here that God may be calling us to lead
homosexual lifestyles - the entire tenor of this pastoral. - glm
"First, don't break off contact; don't reject your child. A shocking number of
homosexual youth end up on the streets because of rejection by parents."
It is true that many young runaways turn to the life of the streets, and surely
they would not do so if their family life had been idyllic, but their plight
can be traced to THEIR decision to leave home, rather than their parents'
decision to break off contact with them. It is a common theme of gay
literature that parents frequently force homosexual children out of their
homes, to live unprotected on the streets. (If the children are minors, this
would be illegal.) The bishops seem to accept this allegation, without citing
any evidence to buttress it.
The striking comparison of this passage with the homosexual literature is
incredible. The prodigal son left home too and was eventually reconciled but
NOT BEFORE he repented of his sins and vowed to begin his life anew. This is
called "tough love" and I maintain, that if a child of age puts it to you
that you either accept his/her lifestyle or he/she will leave, you are doing
that child no favor by allowing them to stay. This, I know from personal
experience. - glm
"If your son or daughter is an adolescent, it is possible that he or she may be
experimenting with some homosexual behaviors as part of the process of coming
to terms with sexual identity. Isolated acts do not make someone homosexual.
Adolescence is often accompanied by anxiety or confusion about sexual identity.
Sometimes the best approach may be a 'wait and see' attitude, while you try to
maintain a trusting relationship and provide various kinds of support,
information, and encouragement."
The Catholic parents envisaged by the bishops are supposed to be astonishingly
blase about the mortal sins of their children. Should they adopt a "wait and
see" attitude if the experimentation also included dalliance with the opposite
sex, perhaps producing a few accidental babies in the process? Is it
conceivable to the bishops that a habit of grievous sin might begin in this
period?
This statement is so incredible, it defies belief. How dare the bishops of
our Church utter such abominable nonsense! - glm
"Look for a therapist who has an appreciation of religious values and who
understands the complex nature of sexuality."
"Always our Children," avoids mentioning any of the groups engaged in this sort
of counseling, such as COURAGE and NARTH.
Father John A. Harvey's, the founder of COURAGE, comments on this are a must
read. - glm
"In the course of this, however, it is essential for you to remain open to the
possibility that your son or daughter is struggling to understand and accept a
basic homosexual orientation."
Notice that while parents are advised to adopt a "wait and see" attitude toward
grave sin, they are told that it is ESSENTIAL for them to be open to the
possibility that a "basic homosexual orientation" is involved - that is, that
the child may not be able to change.
Catholic parents are NEVER required to "remain open to the possibility" that
their children are fatalistically condemned to be inclined and/or committing
mortal sins of the same habitual nature without making every possible attempt
to rectify this situation ASAP. Are same parents obliged to allow the
filthiest of pornography into their homes? Are they supposed to look the other
way while their children drink themselves into oblivion? I, as a Catholic
parent, am astounded, words fail me, at statements like these supposedly coming
from our "good shepherds", our Catholic bishops. - glm
"In light of this possibility [that some people may have an innate and
ineradicable homosexual orientation], therefore, it seems appropriate to
understand sexual orientation (heterosexual or homosexual) as a fundamental
dimension of one's personality and to recognize its relative stability in a
person."
This sentence provides the key to the understanding of the entire document.
The bishops seem to be embracing a hypothesis which is hotly disputed by many
psychologists: the notion that for some people, the homosexual orientation is a
natural tendency rather than (as the Church has consistently taught) an
objective disorder.
Scientific evidence is exactly the converse. Also, this statement dangerously
equates homosexuality with heterosexuality. There is NO comparison. We're
all created heterosexual with homosexuality being an aberation of same. We're
being asked by our bishops to "recognize the relative stability" of being
inclined and/or commiting perverse sexual acts? This is unbelievable, simply
unbelievable! - glm.
"There seems to be no single cause of a homosexual orientation. A common
opinion of experts is that there are multiple factors - genetic, hormonal,
psychological - that may give rise to it."
Here some key distinctions are missing. It is true that experts cite many
different factors which may lead to homosexual behavior. But the passage above
implies that ALL these factors are involved IN EVERY CASE. Again the list of
factors cited by the bishops includes the possibility that homosexual
orientation may be encoded in an individual's genes - a theory which has NO
solid scientific basis, but which leads to the acceptance of homosexuality as a
permanent condition.
The accompanying article in this issue of CWR would seem to refute this
statement, i.e. "Dubious Psychology" by Gerard J.M. van den Aardweg. - glm.
"Some homosexual persons want to be known publicly as gay or lesbian. These
terms often express a person's level of self-awareness and self-acceptance
within society. Though you might find the terms offensive because of political
or social connotations, it is necessary to be sensitive to how your son or
daughter is using them."
The "political and social connotations" of public identification as "gay" or
"lesbian" invariably include opposition to the traditional teachings of the
Church.
Catholic parents are NOT required to be sensitive to the jargon of the militant
homosexual agenda. There is NOTHING, repeat NOTHING gay about being inclined
or commiting acts of sexual perversion. The former is an objective disorder
which can never be accepted as normal; the latter is a sin which cries out to
Heaven for vengeance! - glm.
"Second, concentrate on the person, not on the homosexual orientation itself."
This sentence seems to contradict the notion, cited earlier in the pastoral
message, that the homosexual orientation may be a "fundamental dimension of
one's personality."
That's what Catholic parents are trying to do given the invariant teaching
Magisterium of their Church on matters of Faith and Morals which needs to
be reinforced, not questioned, by their bishops. There is a strong implication
in AOC that the inclination to homosexual acts is of no great concern. This
is obvious from the nonreinforcement of the inclination being an objective
disorder and no reference whatsover to Cardinal Ratzinger's earlier pastoral
to the bishops on the care of homosexual persons. Moreover, the bishops go
one step further by actually saying that the inclination to the act is
NOT immoral. Given the BROADEST definition of immoral, that statement is not
true, immoral "meaning not conforming to or expressing or teaching a conception
of a standard of right behavior". Is the inclination to sexual perversion
conforming to a standard of right behavior? Hardly. If so, sexual perversion
is right behavior. [Please note that I'm talking about the most general
definition of immoral in this context.] In essence, what the bishops succeeded
in doing by this faux pas was to give the erroneous impression that the
"objective disordered" state of the inclination no longer implied. I submit
that conclusion could be drawn by any reasonable man not versed in Catholic
Moral theology which is the case for most of the laity, and most certainly the
secular media. I might add that Father Harvey himself in one of his benchmark
books on homosexuality recognizes this general definition of "immorality" by
using it in the same manner as I have above. - glm
"This implies respecting a person's freedom to choose or refuse therapy
directed toward changing a homosexual orientation."
The only application this statement can have is with regard to children still
in the home or under parental supervision. In practice, it says that
adolescent homosexuals (who, it might be thought, are ipso facto in a state of
profound confusion) are to have pre-eminence in the decision whether or not to
seek therapy to reverse their own appetites.
You do NOT repect a person's freedom to commit sin because as, a Roman Catholic,
you HATE sin. In particular, when said persons are your children, how could
you if you really love your children - love most manifested by caring for their
eternal salvation first and foremost? Moreover, how could your bishops ask
you to do so? - glm.
"Given the present state of medical and psychological knowledge, there is no
guarantee that such therapy will succeed. Thus, there may be no obligation to
undertake it, though some may find it helpful."
This half-hearted mention of therapy, taken together with the conspicuous
absence of mention of the individuals and groups engaged in that therapy, can
only be taken as implicit advice from the bishops that therapy is a whimsical
choice rather than a serious enterprise.
There is certainly no guarantee that such therapy will fail either, is there,
given the well documented evidence to date, especially from COURAGE? Why is the
negative reinforced here instead of the positive? There is no obligation to go
to Hell either if we believe why we were created though some may find it
helpful to rediscover that fact by studying why God created us. - glm
"Being created a male or a female person is an essential part of the divine
plan, for it is their sexuality - a mysterious blend of spirit and body - that
allows human beings to share in God's own creative love and life.
'Everyone...should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity' (CCC, 2333).
Like all gifts from God, the power and freedom of sexuality can be channeled
toward good or evil. Everyone - the homosexual and the heterosexual person - is
called to personal maturity and responsibility."
The CATECHISM can be invoked here only because of the careful (some might say
fraudulent) use of ellipsis. The full sentence in the CATECHISM reads:
"Everyone, MAN AND WOMAN, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity."
(emphasis added) The CATECHISM urges readers to accept their sexual identity
as MALE or FEMALE; "Always Our Children" hints at acceptance of homosexuality.
CWR is being too kind here, i.e., "some might say fraudulent." How else can
this statement be taken. It is used totally out of the context of the
complementarity of the sexes that has been preached constantly by the Holy
Father in many magnificent Church documents. In effect a Church document,
via a selective reading, has been perverted to give acceptance to sexual
perversion. Again, the homosexual state is ERRONEOUSLY equated as comparable
to the heterosexual state. This is totally fallacious and the gospel of the
militant homosexual activists echoed in a pastoral from Catholic bishops. How
so very sad this state of affairs is - the very people you need the most to
help you are throwing chains around your neck in fighting the culture wars for
the souls of your children. How can the homosexual be called to "personal
maturity"? By the very nature of his/her state, immaturity is the road being
traveled. The only way that maturity will be achieved is by leaving not living
the homosexual lifestyle. AOC NEVER comes close to stating this. The exact
opposite is constantly implied. - glm
"Other people have traveled the same road as you. but may have journeyed even
further. They can share effective ways of handling delicate family situations
such as how to tell family members and friends about your child, how to explain
homosexuality to younger children, how to relate to your son or daughter's
friends in a Christian way."
If "your son or daughter's friends" are their partners in sodomy, what does it
mean to relate to them in a Christian way? And how are parents of other
homosexuals supposed to have special insight into this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below, commentary by Gary Morella
"Is it possible to be Christian and to be gay?" - the answer from a Christian
perspective.
That question needs to be reposed per 1) what being "gay" typically means in
contemporary usage as defined in Websters, i.e., "homosexual, one who is
inclined toward or practices homosexuality, the manifestation of sexual desire
toward a member of one's own sex, and erotic activity with a member of one's
own sex", and 2) what being "Christian" typically means, i.e., "based on or
conforming with Christianity, the religion derived from Jesus Christ, based on
the Bible as Sacred Scripture, and professed by Eastern, Roman Catholic, and
Protestant bodies."
Is it possible to be Christian and be inclined to homosexual acts? The answer
is yes as there is no guarantee that Christians are not tempted to sin. It is
better to ask "Is it possible to remain a Christian and live a lifestyle that
equates sexual perversion with normality? The answer is a resounding No. For
to do so makes a mockery of Sacred Scripture (Matthew 5:17-19) which states
emphatically that Jesus condemns the sin while loving the sinner. The same
"good and gentle" Jesus who is readily quoted out of context by the
contemporary disciples of "dignity" and "self esteem" ALSO is the "just" Jesus
who talked more about the consequences of grave sin than any other New
Testament figure. He was especially discriminatory in this regard as while
some ceremonial aspects of the old law were rescinded, the moral requirements
weren't.
Would so-called "Christian" apologists for the homosexual lifestyle have us
believe that Matthew 5:21-31 excuses any responsibility for living same
because homosexuality is not explicitly referred to? It most certainly is.
In particular, see Genesis 18:20-21 and Romans 1:24-28. Moreover, Jesus took
the old law one step further and made the actions leading to the act as severe
as the act itself. Are we to believe as Christians that somehow homosexuality
fell through the cracks in Sacred Scripture? Thus, from the Christian
standpoint, to imply that Jesus never said anything about being inclined to
unnatural acts is Bible eisegesis with the consequences of Matthew 18:6.
To give a message to those inclined to homosexual acts that "they are OK as
they are" is unChristian in the extreme given the above observations. It makes
no more sense than to tell an alcoholic that you may continue drinking to get
over alcoholism. Moreover, it is akin to giving a serial killer more bullets.
The Magdalenes of the Gospel were most certainly forgiven, but the words of
Jesus following His forgiveness are conveniently forgotten. "Go and sin no
more." That is what it means to be Christian. To make the attempt to live
a Faith which will be mocked by the world. To imply that the the homosexual
lifestyle somehow has a Christian blessing is tragic. It's tragic because
souls are at stake - those living the lie and, especially, those telling it.
For Christians, that's NOT love but REAL hate for their fellow man.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The critique below applied to the original version of Always Our Children.
OBSERVATIONS ON THE PASTORAL LETTER FROM THE BISHOPS' COMMITTEE ON
MARRIAGE AND FAMILY: "ALWAYS OUR CHILDREN"
The pastoral message "Always Our Children" manifests compassionate
understanding of persons with homosexual tendencies, and their parents
and siblings. It is theologically sound on the morality of homosexual
acts, and its broad message is that parents should love their children
who struggle with homosexual tendencies, while not accepting
homosexual behaviour. We are also pleased to see that the document
recognizes the complex nature of homosexuality and that the document
makes the important distinction between just and unjust
discrimination. In a spirit of love, we have gathered some suggestions
from leaders, members, and supporters of Courage throughout the
country, and we pass these suggestions on to the Bishops, with the
hope that the pastoral letter can be strengthened.
The use of the terms "gay" and "lesbian" give the public the
impression that the homosexual condition is fixed and permanent. There
is much scientific and empirical evidence to the contrary. Men and
women who sincerely desire to develop their heterosexual potential
should not be in ignorance of the opportunities for help to move
toward their God-given masculinity or femininity. We do not say that
every individual who makes such an effort will be able to complete the
journey, but he should at least be given the knowledge that many
people have been able to do so. In this effort, the primary goal will
always remain the practice of interior chastity, which is nothing else
but Gospel purity of heart. It is really not a good idea for any one
to identify oneself as "gay" or "lesbian", because it gives the
impression that one's homosexual orientation is his most important
characteristic. The 1986 Letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine
of the Faith says that "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."
Sexuality is a gift of God expressed in the unitive and procreative
good of marriage. The document very correctly points out that
homogenital behaviour is objectively immoral, because it does not
occur within the marriage relationship of a man and woman, and because
it is not open to the possible creation of human life. The document
also distinguishes between homogenital behaviour and homosexual
orientation; however, while the document does point out that the
homosexual orientation is not in itself immoral, it neglects to
mention that the homosexual orientation is objectively disordered (CDF
Letter to the Roman Catholic Bishops of the World, sect. 3). Instead,
it says that "sexuality is a gift from God" and then goes on to quote
the Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2333: "Everyone... should
acknowledge and accept his sexual identity." The idea conveyed is that
homosexuality is also a gift from God, and should be accepted as one's
fixed and permanent identity; however, the actual quote from the
Catechism, "Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his
sexual identity" is part of a paragraph describing the complementarity
of man and woman in married life and in society. It is incorrect to
use this quote as a justification that one should accept their
homosexuality as a fixed state. Neither can homosexual attraction be
considered as a gift of God, except in the sense that suffering can be
a gift. In the context of homosexuality, it is more accurate to speak
of "sexual attraction" rather than "sexual identity". It is important
to distinguish between the proper other-sex attraction and a
misdirected same-sex attraction. The conviction that a misdirected
attraction is a stable or "fundamental dimension of one's personality
has no support from Catholic teaching.
The 1986 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral
Care of Homosexual Persons (PCHP) warned that, in some cases, "an
overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition
itself, some going so far as to call it neutral or even good." We
suggest that a pastoral on this subject stress that the homosexual
inclination cannot be considered as equal to heterosexuality. The
capacity for human love, which is expressed in its highest form in the
sacrament of marriage is a fundamental component of human nature and
of God's plan for mankind. It is a vocation that is ordered to the
full giving of one's self in the sacramental bond, and in the gift of
parenthood. It is thus an inherent good. Homosexuality is nothing of
the sort.
As the CDF has stated, it is "objectively disordered" because it urges
a person, not toward the inherent good of marriage and procreation,
but toward sinful conduct. The document in several places fails to
make this clear, and may cause uninformed persons to conclude that
homosexuality is a normal variant of sexual development, something
which is contrary to the explicit statements in the catechism and in
the Vatican pastoral letters of 1976, 1986, and 1992. It would be
helpful if the Bishops' pastoral would explain the Church's position
on "Gay Rights Legislation" (Sacred Congregation of the Faith, 1992
statement on non-discrimination). Many clergy, parents and young
people are confused by the current propaganda in favour of same-sex
marriage.
The document quotes the phrase "homosexuals who are definitively such
because of some kind of innate instinct" from the 1975 Declaration on
Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics. This phrase is an
inaccurate translation of the Latin quasi innatus which should be
translated "as if innate." The first Italian edition of the Catholic
Catechism which used the word "innate" in describing the homosexual
orientation was revised. Cardinal Ratzinger explained the reason for
the change: "One objection was that we made people think homosexual
tendency was innate, that it was already present at the moment of
birth or conception of the person. Many competent experts said that
this has not been proven."
In addressing how a parent should deal with an adolescent who is
confused about his sexual identity, the document says "If your son or
daughter is an adolescent, it is possible that he or she may be
experimenting with some homosexual behaviours as part of the process
of coming to terms with sexual identity. Isolated acts do not make
someone homosexual. Adolescence is often accompanied by anxiety or
confusion about sexual identity. Sometimes the best approach may be a
`wait and see' attitude, while you try to maintain a trusting
relationship and provide various kinds of support, information and
encouragement." This "wait and see" attitude is very dangerous. If
someone is attracted to drugs or to alcohol, we do not accept that
attraction as a given, or indicate that it is beyond their power to
reject. The truth is that we are dealing with an objective disorder
within the person. The parent should do everything possible to help
the youth to move away from this particular attraction, and from the
surroundings which encourage him to act out. If pastors are going to
advise parents concerning homosexuality, they should remind parents
that their first obligation is to protect the child from immoral and
dangerous behaviour.
Given the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV
disease, among male homosexuals, advising parents to adopt a "wait and
see attitude" to same-sex experimentation among adolescents is an
invitation to tragedy. If the male child has been involved in
homosexual behaviour, he ought to be immediately tested, because in
several large cities, a significant number of youth who were involved
in homosexual activity became HIV positive. New studies show that 9%
of homosexually active males aged 20 to 22 are already HIV positive.
The earlier a boy becomes involved in same-sex behavior, the more
likely he will become HIV positive or infected with other possibly
fatal sexually transmitted diseases such as hepatitis and human
papilloma virus. Adolescents who become involved in the homosexual
lifestyle are also at risk for drug and alcohol abuse and sexual
addiction; moreover, the document seems to imply that "experimenting
with some homosexual behaviors as part of the process of coming to
terms with sexual identity" is part of a normal developmental process.
On the contrary adolescents should be discouraged from experimenting
with illicit sexual behavior, which is both immoral and futile. When
seeking professional help, the parents should choose a knowledgeable
counselor who respects the moral teaching of the Church.
The document well describes the emotions of parents upon discovering
that their child is struggling with homosexual desires; however, the
fear which these parents have for the spiritual welfare of their grown
children is not mentioned in the document, and that is the first
anxiety which many such parents express in counselling sessions with
priests. Under the pastoral recommendation to parents, it should be
clearly stated in point number two, that, while demonstrating love for
the child, the parent must firmly stand opposed to any homosexual
activity, not simply because the parents find it "objectionable", but
because the behaviour is damaging to the child's soul.
The document's definition of chastity is inadequate in stating that
"chastity means integrating one's thoughts, feelings, and actions in
the area of human sexuality, in a way that values and respects one's
own dignity and that of others." One can easily imagine an argument
that one can "integrate" the "thoughts, feelings, and actions" that
stem from one's "innate" homosexual orientation "in a way that values
and respects one's own dignity." In deed the document seems to leave
the field open for such an argument. This is clearly inferior to the
definition offered by the Catechism at 2337: "Chastity means the
successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the
inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in
which man's belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed,
becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the
relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong
mutual gift of a man and a woman." Why avoid such clarity in favour of
such ambiguity?
In the document's speaking of "the power and freedom of sexuality" as
"gifts of God", it would be helpful to show the relationship between
freedom and truth, as our present Holy Father does in Veritatis
Splendor, and contrast it with the "slavery to sin" which is
experienced by those who are trapped in the cycle of compulsive
behaviour so prevalent among those who are involved in illicit sexual
activity. It will be an opportunity to show how the power of grace can
overcome any human weakness. "The trials that you have to bear are no
more than people normally have. You can trust God not to let you be
tried beyond your strength, and with any trial he will give you a way
out of it, and the strength to bear it" (1 Corinthians, 10:13; 1
Corinthians 6:9-11)
We should like to conclude our observations on the Bishops pastoral,
by requesting them to consider the work of Courage and Encourage, not
mentioned in the document. Courage is a spiritual support group for
men and women with homosexual tendencies who desire to live by the
teaching of the Catholic Church. Under the inspiration of the late
Cardinal Cooke in 1980, this group has developed a practical spiritual
program for living the chaste life in union with Jesus Christ. It
stresses its Catholic identity by encouraging members to frequently
receive the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Holy Eucharist, and
to develop a strong devotion to the Blessed Mother. It is now in 28
dioceses in the United States, 6 in Canada, and is also found in the
Philippines, in England, and in Ireland. The Courage program has also
been approved by the Pontifical Council for the Family as a ministry
to persons experiencing homosexual attractions: "This Pontifical
Council for the Family supports the organization called Courage which
was founded by Father John Harvey, OSFS, for helping homosexual
persons to live in accordance with the laws of God and the teaching of
His Church." (Cardinal Lopez Trujillo, speaking on behalf of the Holy
See, July 7, 1994)
Encourage, an outgrowth of Courage, exists in Canada and the United
States. It is specifically designed in a Catholic context to provide
spiritual support and guidance to parents of persons who experience
homosexual attraction. The parents, who are very often opposed by
their own grown children, need spiritual and psychological help
themselves, and in this respect, they are similar to members of
Alanon. Very often a son or daughter who has decided to "come out" as
a homosexual may demand, as a condition for continuing the
relationship, that his or her parents acknowledge that homosexuality
is morally acceptable. In such situations, these parents often undergo
a form of martyrdom in adhering to their faith principles;
nevertheless, they continue to love their children. While recognizing
the hard work of the authors of the document "Always Our Children" and
the sense of compassion they conveyed, we believe that the document
needs substantive revision. It is hoped that these observations from
the leaders, members, and friends of Courage will be given due
consideration by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Rev. John F. Harvey, OSFS
Director of Courage
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The critique below applied to the revised version of Always Our Children.
OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING THE REVISED TEXT OF ALWAYS OUR CHILDREN
After reading the text of the Revised Always Our Children (RAOC), in
Origins, vol. 28, #7, July 2, 1998, I regard it as a distinct
improvement over the flawed October 1, 1997 document, but it is still
characterized by a misleading use of terms and by failure to provide
specific kinds of guidance for Catholic parents of children with
same-sex attractions. I had noted that Bishop Thomas O'Brien, chairman
of the Committee on Marriage and the Family, had consulted with the
Sacred Congregation of the Faith on the revision, and that the
Congregation was "satisfied" with it. I was curious to know what
"satisfied" meant and so I wrote to Rome because I wanted to publish
my reservations about the revision. I received a prompt response which
said that I was free to do so.
In his introduction to the revised document, Bishop O'Brien said that
"the core message, tone, and direction of Always Our Children remains
the same as in the first printing." That is precisely why I have
reservations about the revision, albeit certain objectionable
statements and misuse of Vatican documents were deleted from the
original.
I objected strongly to the use of the terms 'gay' and 'lesbian' in the
original document, pointing out that the human person "can hardly be
adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual
orientation" (CDF 1986 Letter, sect. 16). The terms reappear in the
revised document with a caution that they must be used "in honest and
accurate ways." The document gives no indication what are "honest and
accurate ways." The common connotation of the terms 'gay' and
'lesbian' as understood in the secular media, and as understood by
those who label themselves such is that the most important thing about
them is their homosexual orientation. The individual will tell you,
"This is WHO I AM. I was born this way, and I will always be this way.
I intend to live this way. I will find a lover of my own sex with whom
I can express my natural sexual feelings."
As long as the individual thinks this way, he is prevented from seeing
himself as he really is: a rational creature of God with free will,
capable by the grace of God of controlling his sexual desires and, in
some instances, as has been empirically established, of getting rid of
the condition itself. Each of us is far more than a sexual
orientation. Although the revised document acknowledges that "our
total personhood is more encompassing than sexual orientation," its
acceptance of the terms 'gay' and 'lesbian' undercuts that very
message. Instead of instructing parents to merely "be sensitive to how
your son or daughter is using" these terms, it would be better to
advise parents to discourage their son or daughter from labelling
themselves as 'gay' or 'lesbian'. The 1986 Letter to the Bishops of
the Catholic Church carefully avoids these terms, as I have indicated
above (sect.16).
My second reservation is concerned with the failure of the revised
document to correct its misuse of the 1975 Declaration on Certain
Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics. The revised document (RAOC) states
that "Church teaching acknowledges a distinction between a homosexual
tendency that proves to be 'transitory' and 'homosexuals who are
definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct'." It is
incorrect to say that this is a matter of Church teaching. In section
8 of Certain Questions, the document says that some psychologists hold
to this distinction "not without reason." Certain Questions repeats
the psychological opinion of that time, that some homosexuals "are
such because of some kind of innate instinct or because of a
constitutional defect presumed to be incurable." Both AOC and RAOC use
the phrase "some kind of innate instinct." Such is an erroneous
translation of the Latin, quasi-innatus, which should be translated,
as if innate, in other words, not innate. The first Italian edition of
the Catholic Catechism which used the word 'innate' in describing the
homosexual orientation was revised. Explaining the reason, Cardinal
Ratzinger said, "One objection was that we made people think
homosexual tendency was innate, that it was already present at the
moment of birth or conception of the person. Many competent persons
said that this has not been proven." The revised document, however,
does not take these points into consideration.
In the paragraph following the reference to Certain Questions, it is
said that we should "understand sexual orientation (homosexual or
heterosexual) as a deep-seated dimension of one's personality" and
"recognize its relative stability in a person". Equating heterosexual
and homosexual in the parenthesis seems to imply that in the view of
the Committee on Marriage and the Family, heterosexual orientation and
homosexual orientation are on the same level - both are "deep-seated"
and both have "relative stability".
But heterosexual attraction is natural to man and woman (Catholic
Catechism #2333), while homosexual tendencies are unnatural, although
psychologically understandable. Heterosexual attraction is God-given,
and for the vast majority of the human race, leads to marriage,
children, and family; same-sex attractions are an objective disorder,
but not sinful in themselves (CDF Statement, 1986, sect. 3). The
revised document refers to this objective disorder in footnote no.1,
but it ought to be explained in the text, as it is in section 3 of the
1986 document. One often hears this objection to the term "objective
disorder" being applied to homosexual tendencies: "If a man lusts for
a woman or vice versa, this too is an objective disorder." But this is
not so, because, if the man or woman controls this natural attraction,
and wills to express it in the natural state of marriage, it is a good
thing, desired by the Creator. But if one has a sexual-genital
attraction to another person of the same sex, it can never lead to a
morally good act between the two individuals, but rather it will
always lead to an immoral act. That is why it is called an objective
disorder.
The revised document repeats that it is "a common opinion of experts
that there are multiple factors, genetic, hormonal, psychological,
that may give rise to homosexual orientation." But there is no "common
opinion" among experts on genetic or hormonal factors, and certainly
many schools of thought on psychological factors. This document,
moreover, does little to distinguish carefully between personal
identity and sexual orientation. Our uniqueness as persons is not
rooted in our sexual inclinations, but in other intellectual, volitive
and bodily characteristics. Our personhood is much more complex that
our sexual identity. To center personal identity in a homosexual
inclination is to accept a false identity. It may be said that a
homosexual orientation is not part of one's uniqueness as a rational
or Christian person.
ADVICE TO PARENTS
The revised documents' advice to parents needs further clarification.
It is still not clear whether child refers to an adolescent or an
adult. In practice, the approach that parents should take towards an
adolescent is radically different from the way they relate to a grown
son or daughter. It is said that parents should not "presume that your
child has developed a homosexual orientation". Then, at the end of the
following paragraph, parents are advised to "remain open to the
possibility that your son or daughter is struggling to understand and
accept a basic homosexual orientation". The use of the term "basic" in
this context connotes a fixed condition. This may not be the case,
epsecially in a young person.
Granted it is wise to advise parents not to presume that their child
has a homosexual orientation, as well as to prepare the parents for
the possibility that their child does struggle with such feelings;
however, to refer to such feelings as a "basic homosexual orientation"
is problematic. There is no reason why an adolescent should resign
himself or herself to "accepting a basic homosexual orientation", even
while acknowledging same-sex attractions are present. Instead, parents
should send the adolescent to a reliable therapist who believes in the
Catholic teaching on homosexuality for guidance, and later to an
experienced priest for counsel.
When it comes to the question of how parents relate to the grown son
or daughter who claims to be "gay" or "lesbian", it is important to
consider factors not mentioned in the revised document. From many
years of counselling such parents, I have learned that in most
instances, the grown son or daughter has made up one's mind to live in
a relationship with a same-sex partner. Parents are then faced with a
difficult decision whether to approve this relationship or to say to
their grown child: "I love you, but I cannot approve your behaviour.
Please do not ask me to do so." And the usual reply is: "If you love
me, you will accept our loving relationship, which for us is like your
marriage. But if you do not accept us in our union, then you do not
love me." Oftentimes, the grown child will refuse to communicate with
his parents. This tragic situation lead other Courage members and
priests to form Encourage, a spiritual support group in which parents
seek pastoral guidance and support for themselves.
ADDITIONAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE REVISED DOCUMENT
(1) The revised document does not specify the kinds of retreats that
would benefit Catholic parents of adolescents with same-sex
attractions, that is to say, retreats in which the retreat master and
the Catholic psychologists involved are known for their loyalty to the
magisterial teaching of the universal Church. I have known of retreats
for Catholic parents of children with same-sex attractions where PFLAG
leaders (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) advised the parents
how to respond to adolescent or adult children. PFLAG seeks to
persuade parents to accept their children in the sense of accepting
the lifestyle of the children. This organization sees homosexual
orientation as natural and good in those individuals who identify
themselves as "gay" or "lesbian". Parents are told they should accept
such persons and their behaviour as good and natural, especially in
the context of a "faithful" relationship. Such advice is painfully
seductive, especially in the case of young persons who are confused
about their sexual inclinations.
(2) In outlining the various emotional responses of parents who learn
that their son or daughter has same-sex attractions, one should
include under the heading FEAR: "You may fear for the spiritual
welfare of your child who is active in the homosexual lifestyle." From
my dialogue with such parents, I know this is a real concern for them.
(3) It is not enough to seek a therapist who "has an appreciation of
religious values". The therapist should respect the moral teaching of
the Catholic Church on homosexuality. The therapist should be open to
the possibility that a young person may be able to move beyond
homosexual attractions towards heterosexual development, despite the
opposition of the psychological establishment.
(4) Under the pastoral recommendations to parents, it should be
clearly stated in point number 2 that, while demonstrating love for
the child, parents should stand opposed to any kind of homogenital
activity, not only because they find it "objectionable", but also
because it is seriously immoral.
(5) Under the pastoral recommendations to church ministers, point
number 5, the advice to them to seek agencies that "operate in a
manner consistent with Church teaching" needs clarification. It should
be made clear that the agencies recommended should be faithful to the
magisterial teachings of the Church regarding the immorality of
homogenital acts. Some agencies sin by omission in that they stress
the issue of discrimination, while neglecting the need for a program
to promote chastity among persons with same-sex attractions.
(6) The advice to seek help from "special diocesan gay and lesbian
ministries" is also cause for concern, as our experience has shown
that such "ministries" do not provide a program for chaste living.
Such programs tend to encourage individuals to define their personhood
by their homosexual attractions, labelling themselves according to an
objectively disordered inclination. Father Benedict Groeschel regards
the term "gay and lesbian ministry" as an oxymoron.
Once again, we praise the spirit of compassion found in the revised
version of Always Our Children, and the effort to offer help to every
family affected by homosexuality. We hope, however, that a better
document can be developed. Members of Courage/Encourage pray that the
Committee on Marriage and the Family will be open to further revisions
of this document for the common good of all those persons with
same-sex attractions who desire to live faithfully by the teachings of
our Catholic Faith.
Rev. John F. Harvey, OSFS
Director of Courage