Last time out I commented on Pope Francis presiding over the marriages of twenty couples in St. Peter's, and what a fuss it caused in the press. The commotion was due to the fact that these couples came from varying backgrounds; first time married, second tries after an annulment, or couples who had been cohabitating previous to the wedding day. My main point was that, while the symbolic nature of the act shouldn't be overlooked, in reality the Holy Father was doing what parish priests the world over have been doing for a very long time; bringing these relationships into accord with the Christian understanding of what marriage is, and thus the people themselves into a deeper participation with the life of the Church.
This has been a hall mark of Pope Francis' brief papacy so far; offering both words and actions that appear more revolutionary than they are. In part this is because, unlike his immediate predecessors he doesn't talk like an intellectual but rather as a pastor, in plain, but colorful images easy to understand. For instance one of the Pope's more flamboyant comments came when he told an audience that if "martians" came knocking on the church door looking to be baptized we should oblige them. Obviously he wasn't commenting on the existence of extraterrestrials, but rather on pastors who put unreasonable requirements on parents seeking to baptize their children. This is not so much different than things Benedict said as pope, but only that the Pope Emeritus didn't say it in such a pithy, evocative way. Francis' comments on economics have gotten a lot of press, and criticism, but he is quick to point out that everything he has said and written can be found in the Catechism, and isn't out of step with things promulgated by his predecessor. Again, it's a matter of tone and vocabulary more than substance.
No words of the Pope have gotten more press than his famous quote, "Who am I to judge," when asked about his views on gays in the Church. The press interpreted that response as representing either a shift in Church teaching on homosexual acts, or at least a greater toleration for Catholics living the gay lifestyle. But was that really the question he was asked, and was that the totality of the answer?
I offer both the original question and answer here below. Remember the context, which is an impromptu news conference aboard the jet taking the Holy Father back to Rome after last year's World Youth Day in Rio. He is being asked a question about a cardinal who had been under investigation for an alleged inappropriate relationship with an adult man.
The Question to Pope Francis from Ilse, a journalist on the Papal flight
Ilse: I would like to ask permission to pose a rather delicate question. Another image that went around the world is that of Monsignor Ricca and the news about his personal life. I would like to know, your Holiness, what will be done about this question. How should one deal with this question and how does your Holiness wish to deal with the whole question of the gay lobby?The Pope’s Answer
Regarding the matter of Monsignor Ricca, I did what Canon Law required and did the required investigation. And from the investigation, we did not find anything corresponding to the accusations against him. We found none of that. That is the answer. But I would like to add one more thing to this: I see that so many times in the Church, apart from this case and also in this case, one looks for the “sins of youth,” for example, is it not thus?, And then these things are published. These things are not crimes. The crimes are something else: child abuse is a crime. But sins, if a person, or secular priest or a nun, has committed a sin and then that person experienced conversion, the Lord forgives and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives. When we go to confession and we truly say “I have sinned in this matter,” the Lord forgets and we do not have the right to not forget because we run the risk that the Lord will not forget our sins, eh? This is a danger. This is what is important: a theology of sin. So many times I think of St. Peter: he committed one of the worst sins denying Christ. And with this sin they made him Pope. We must think about fact often.
But returning to your question more concretely: in this case [Ricca] I did the required investigation and we found nothing. That is the first question. Then you spoke of the gay lobby. Agh… so much is written about the gay lobby. I have yet to find on a Vatican identity card the word gay. They say there are some gay people here. I think that when we encounter a gay person, we must make the distinction between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of a lobby, because lobbies are not good. They are bad. If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge that person? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this point beautifully but says, wait a moment, how does it say, it says, these persons must never be marginalized and “they must be integrated into society.”
The problem is not that one has this tendency; no, we must be brothers, this is the first matter. There is another problem, another one: the problem is to form a lobby of those who have this tendency, a lobby of the greedy people, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of Masons, so many lobbies. This is the most serious problem for me. And thank you so much for doing this question. Thank you very much!I encourage you to read the entire quote, but the highlighted parts alone give a fuller expression to what the Holy Father was saying.
The issue for the Pope is not whether an individual is gay or not, but that the person have an openness to following Christ and a spirit of repentance when he or she sins. When one sins, even in the sexual realm, even if it involves breaking a vow, and, yes, even when it involves a same sex partner, the attitude of the penitent and the Church should be one of sincere repentance, compassion, and trust in God's mercy. The earth isn't going to open up and swallow the person alive, nor are thunder bolts going to flash from the heavens and strike the person down. But if we really hear what he's saying, on the one hand we shouldn't over react, for lack of a better term, to sexual sin, even homosexual acts, but still understand their inherent sinful nature and return to the Lord with confidence. Sin is still sin, but Christ came to take away the sins of the world, and the Sacrament of Reconciliation is the concrete and effective expression of that fact.
Where the Pope does have a problem is with a gay lobby, if one even exists (and he does some fancy verbal footwork around answering if such a lobby indeed exists at the Vatican). As has been his style Pope Francis is both direct and just vague enough when he speaks to make you wonder what he's driving at. He speaks of a gay lobby as a "most serious problem", but really doesn't elaborate about what he means, beyond comparing it to a lobby of greedy people, of politicians, and of Masons (there's a blast from the past). Then the Holy Father politely, but abruptly, ends the answer.
If I could be so bold, I think that the point is that lobbies advocate for a particular cause or constituency. It tries to justify and promote the activities of the constituency represented. The gun lobby tries to secure the rights of gun owners, and fights against gun control legislation. More innocuously, the corn lobby or some other agriculture lobby will fight for the rights of farmers, seeking subsidies or some other favors from the government. While as Catholics we are to be sympathetic and compassionate, we can't harbor lobbies that advocate for those dedicated to a lifestyle contrary to Gospel values. There are groups within the Church like Courage, made up of gay Catholics dedicated to living the chaste life. It doesn't attempt to change their orientation, but helps them live in fidelity with the Christian understanding of human sexuality. Usually when a "Gay Lobby" is referred to in the Church it's a group of people who, aren't simply looking to stop discrimination, but also looking to justify a lifestyle contrary to the Gospel. This justification is opposed to the spirit of repentance because it doesn't recognize homosexual acts as sinful. If sin is not recognized then repentance will not be manifested, and so God's mercy frustrated.
Again, as the Holy Father states in his answer, there is nothing in his words that can't be found in some form in the Catechism. But I'm not suggesting that Pope Francis isn't offering something new. He is. It's a tome of reconciliation. It's a tome that doesn't deny sin, but promotes mercy. It doesn't focus on the ugliness of sin but on the beauty of mercy, compassion and, yes, repentance.
It does acknowledge that in defending the truth Catholics can come off as judgmental and harsh. We definitely need to find a new vocabulary, because meanings and nuances of words do change over time. I'm thinking of the word "disordered" in particular. For those familiar with Thomistic philosophy there is nothing wrong with it being used in the context of sexual orientation, but today it has taken on a therapeutic, mental health connotation that makes it look like we are making a judgment on some one's sanity which isn't necessarily the case.
In the end, the Pope is still Catholic, and is trying to show all of us they way to live the truth with charity.
No comments:
Post a Comment