Catholic Church leaders in Africa and Central Asia prohibit the blessing of same-sex couples, despite recent Vatican approval. In fact, Catholic bishops in several countries have objected to the Vatican’s, and Pope Francis’, recent approval of blessings for same-sex couples, underscoring the divisiveness of the issue in the global Catholic Church.
The Catholic bishops of Africa and Madagascar issued a unified statement refusing to follow the Vatican declaration allowing priests to offer blessings to same-sex couples and asserting that such unions are “contrary to the will of God.” The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a brief statement focusing mostly on its assertion that same-sex couples remain ineligible for liturgical blessings and reiterating the church’s position that marriage is a union of a man with a woman.
Some bishops in Germany and Belgium, however, have long defied the earlier Catholic Church ban on blessing same-sex unions, even going so far as to produce a rite of blessing for same-sex couples.
Anti-LGBTQ policies and punishments, elsewhere, remain strong. In Africa, for example, 33 of the 54 nations across the continent have laws that make same-sex activity a crime punishable with fines and even lengthy prison sentences. In Somalia and some of the states of Nigeria people can even be legally put to death for same-sex behavior.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1992, is still in effect and considers sexual activity between members of the same sex to be a grave sin and same-sex attraction as objectively disordered.
Nevertheless, on Monday, December 18, 2023, in an official declaration “Fiducia supplicans” issued by the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, and approved by Pope Francis, it is now permissible for priests to bless same-sex couples as long as they are not part of regular Church rituals or liturgies. [The “Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith” (DDF) was originally founded by Pope Paul III in 1542 and was then known as the “Inquisition.”]
With this new declaration the DDF and Pope Francis have firmly established the possibility of blessing same-sex couples and remarried divorcees as a pastoral option. Pope Francis also emphasized, however, that blessing same-sex people should not be equated with blessing their sins! His remark reminded me of the earlier 2021 DDF declaration which had stated flat-out that the church couldn’t bless the unions of two men or two women because “God cannot bless sin.”
So now the Vatican takes small steps in the right direction? Time will tell. One of my theologian friends observed that the December 2023 DDF document is akin to kindly giving a glass of water to a starving person, but only a glass of water.
In any event, in view of recent developments, an historical-critical perspective is helpful…
LOOKING AT SACRED SCRIPTURE AGAIN
Up to now, the traditional religious condemnation of same-sex behavior had been based on: Genesis 19:1-11; Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:26-7; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and 1 Timothy 1:10. In the light of contemporary biblical scholarship, however, it is impossible to affirm that these texts provide a solid foundation for condemning same-sex behavior today.
The Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament texts should not be taken literally but should be interpreted in terms of the authors’ times, culture, and social contexts – an historical-critical interpretation.
The understanding, back when the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament were composed, was that all human beings were naturally heterosexual and, therefore, any same-sex behavior was unnatural, a perversion, and immoral. That biblical assumption is now understood as incorrect, because some people are, by nature, same-sex oriented.
Relying upon the historical-critical method, it is clear that the traditional condemnation of same-sex behavior lacks legitimacy. Change does happen. The old understanding of human sexuality is time-bound. A new understanding has already begun taking shape. As an older Catholic historical theologian, I have often chuckled that in 1943, the year I was born, the Vatican endorsed a more critical study of Scripture based on an increase in historical knowledge. The Vatican recognized explicitly that “past ages” did not have “all the information which was needed for their clearer exposition.” Historical development.
No doubt the most influential biblical account leading to the condemnation of same-sex behavior has been the biblical account about Sodom in the book of Genesis (Genesis 19:1-28). A contextual exegesis, now agreed upon by most contemporary biblical scholars, shows that a same-sex condemnation based on the Sodom account is really not an accurate biblical interpretation. Scripture scholars today are in agreement that Inhospitality was the real sin of Sodom. The residents of Sodom refused to offer shelter to the two visiting angels who entered their city that evening.
If one asks why God would destroy Sodom because of inhospitality, one must realize that hospitality in ancient Near Eastern culture was highly valued. Travelers were vulnerable to all kinds of cruel treatment such as robbery, assault, rape, and murder. The clearer sin in both the Hebrew text and the original Hebrew context was the sin of inhospitality. Even the historical Jesus, in the Gospel of Luke, affirmed this inhospitality interpretation, in his reference to Sodom when his disciples were not welcomed in a town with hospitality. (Luke 10:8-12)
A CONTEMPORARY PERSPECTIVE
The heterosexual – “other-sex” – orientation is an innate, deep-seated, and stable orientation to, predominantly, persons of the opposite sex. It is natural. The homosexual – “same-sex” – orientation is a similarly innate, deep-seated, and stable orientation to, predominantly, persons of the same sex. It is natural. A person’s sexual orientation is neither chosen nor readily changeable. It simply is. And… sexual acts – whether heterosexual or homosexual – are moral when they are natural and expressed in a truly human, just, and loving manner.
FOR FURTHER READING
Creighton University theologians, Todd A. Salzman (who completed his doctorate in theology at the Catholic University of Leuven in 1994) and Michael G. Lawler, have written extensively about Catholic sexual morality. I strongly recommend their book The Sexual Person, Toward a Renewed Catholic Anthropology, Georgetown University Press, 2008. Their book provides a helpful context for current ethical debates about marriage, cohabitation, sexual orientation, and reproductive technologies.
Todd and Michael contend that the Catholic Church is inconsistent in its teaching. It adopts a dynamic, historically conscious anthropology on social ethics; but it still adopts a static, classicist anthropology on sexual ethics. They propose a definition of human sexuality that finds love and truth in all just and loving heterosexual, lesbian, gay, and bisexual acts.
Historical-critical thinking is important. We observe. We reflect. We can change.
Jack
Thank you for setting the record straight.
Many thanks Betty.
Jack
For the most part I find myself in complete agreement, but would refer to human sexuality on a continuum, with heterosexual orientation at one extreme and homosexual orientation at the other end. Experience continues to demonstrate that there are not necessarily only absolutes in distinction; there are plenty of humans who fall all along the spectrum. There are, however, real issues and those begin with the time it takes for theology to catch up to scientific discovery once a new awareness is posited. Unfortunately, by human nature, one is disinclined to hang around for church ratification when the evidence is blatant. Reality commands that hierarchy and academic theologians recognize that humans recognize that they get one ride on the merry-go-round, one bite at the apple; finally absent guilt, which it has taken millenia to overcome, the intelligent human is going to trust love over law and pay no mind either to those who resist growth/progress out of fear, or resist out of a need to cling to power. Underpinning this is a reality that the majority of denominational believers are not connected with reliable or deeply explored academic theology. And we in the United States continue to reap that whirlwind.
Yes Joe I agree. It would be better to say that human sexuality is a continuum and then acknowledge that the continuum is normal and not innately disordered.
Jack
Dear Jack,
Again, you have not shied away from a challenging subject!! Your research and reasoning helps us pause to reflect on what we believe and why we believe it without passion or emotion. If only we people of faith could make our judgments based on scholarly information as you have provided. In contrast to your helpful insights, our pastor from the sanctuary recently reassured some of our, apparently, upset parishioners that “the Church’s teaching on same-sex relationships has not changed” following the pope’s allowance of blessings for same sex couples. He tried to calm those fearful of change that priests had always had the power to bless anyone in the same way as they can bless (my thoughts!) the bikes or the pets or homes. My cynical side thought that he was trying to say that it’s no big thing and not to expect big changes because it wouldn’t happen on his watch. It would be wonderful to have your expertise shared with the common folk so we can get on with the mission of being a caring, inclusive, and loving Christian people.
Peace,
Frank
Thanks as always Frank for your wisdom about life. Thank you good friend!
Jack
Very nice, Jack. Thank you. I will be curious to know if you get any negatives here. I suspect that your audience has already self selected enough to spare you that.
When I had the opportunity to study scripture, my prof was a priest who had a PhD in biblical studies from Duke. He taught us the science, not the religion of biblical scholarship. I am forever grateful. Historical context is everything.
I know the Bishop of Rome has a serious problem with all of the cultural views within Catholicism. This is a tiny, modest step. I wish him well with all of that.
No one complains when people have their animals blessed on the feast of Francis of Assisi.
I still find it amazing how rapidly the acceptance of same sex marriage spread. If you really know just one person who is of this genre, you will immediately understand that it is part of them – not something they acquired.
Thanks.
Thanks Carl. I did get one angry note from a reader who finds my perspective “disgusting.” But also many very positive responses. Life goes on! 😉
Jack
Jack, Thanks for another enlightening essay.
“The Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament texts should not be taken literally but should be interpreted in terms of the authors’ times, culture, and social contexts – an historical-critical interpretation.”
I agree with your statement, in addition, the Hebrew Scriptures and Christian Testament texts were written entirely from the male perspective. Yes, there are several books in the Hebrew Scriptures with names of women in their titles but written by males. None of the Christian Testament texts are written by women.
The RCC hierarchy is all male, so the male RCC can only speak from the male perspective, yet it alludes speaking for God who is non-gender, yet we the laity readily speak of God as both Mother and Father. It is an oxymoron comprehending a male deity on a birthing bed giving birth to the Cosmos, other universes, and other dimensions of consciousness.
An oxymoron is how we Catholics begin prayer, ‘in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit’, which are titles not names. I think a more appropriate way to begin is acknowledging that we are always in the presence of our Creator, reawakening to our own human Incarnation being fractals of Source (we title as God), seeking Truth and Wisdom to become fully human.
The hierarchy portrays themselves as keepers of the gates to all truth, wisdom and Source itself. They are sole-exclusionists, self-proclaimed wizards and protectors of who can and cannot approach their own self-made thrones and Source.
••••
The Vatican recognized explicitly that “past ages” did not have “all the information which was needed for their clearer exposition.”
The Vatican and it’s commission to secular empires to the conquering of ‘pagan’ cultures with explicit instructions to destroy cultures, their wisdom and libraries of knowledge, in fear that those culture’s beliefs would conflict with and expose Christianity’s own lack of truth, insights and experience of Source.
••••
Lastly, I recommend reading this current essay – Medieval women mystics offer a vision of Jesus beyond gender – by Ellyn Sanna.
https://uscatholic.org/articles/202401/medieval-women-mystics-offer-a-vision-of-jesus-beyond-gender/
Thank you for this timely essay as I am sure we are going to experience a lot more pushback on this matter. I have for many years wished that the Catholic Church would accept the positive and self giving aspects of relationships and, with this in mind, I have long held that legal responsibility for the care of another as in adoption, guardianship or civil unions be recognized by the church in a more formal way.
Very well said Tony. Thank you.
Jack
Ruminating on responses to recent thought-starters, here are a couple mental vexperiments that have helped me lately:
a) What is implicate in one of the Aramaic translations of The Lord’s Prayer (“Abwoon”) that exposes the bones beneath the Elizabethan English version, begins to unfold like this:
“O Birther, Father-Mother of the Cosmos,/ Focus your light within us; make it useful./ From this divine union, let us birth new images for a new world of peace…” [from Neil Douglas-Klotz]
b) Following the Semitic thought-thread about divine union, the clustered spirals of these meditative words remind me that parenting is not, and never was, gender-specific. Women and men mother and father their children according to the needs of human growth at different times of life, out of love for the new younger persons entrusted to parents. So, the “blessing” of a loving union of two humans is just as fitting for same-gender couples as it is for other-gender couples. The material trappings are immaterial, because the personal vows that symbolize the commitments to one another ARE DE FACTO the matter and form of this spiritual union that we call “marriage.” Therefore it is sacrament in character and by definition (= even if strictly limited) both in essence and existence, with or without acknowledgment of a systematic institution. The epiphany here is that systems are inadequate to the souls’ bonds and needs, which reside in sacred free will, not in algorithms or in syllogisms.
c) Some of my friends, when in restaurants, mutter private devotional signs of the cross, a blessing that excludes everyone else at table. I’m not embarrassed at the halt in conversations and camaraderie: I respect religious zeal, even though it seems pre-judgmental to cast others as tepid or uninvited to some future celestial banquet. (The not-so-subtle message about credal discrepancies emanates from the symbolic badge of secret membership, which is inverted I think.) However, these little moments call up my own trial version of an inner sign of the cross that feels more open: “In the name of the fathers, mothers and whole families everywhere, let us proceed for their sake,” or something akin: try out your own.
Personally, I was blessed with devoted parents who fused and forged our family in difficult and often terrible times. In contrast, I know so many friends and relatives now whose “nuclear families” suffered fissions and fractures in the parenting department. Their early family life was less than whole, and yet they eventually matured as lovely and loving adults who are good friends who care responsibly about a troubled world. So, my “vexperiments” with rewriting prayers, creeds, and sacramental signs remind me that parenting is a spectrum, and Jesus of Nazareth enfolds and unfolds us in the struggle— He who, according to scripture, harbored ambiguous ideas about His own father. As a matter of faith, “our” scripture identifies Jesus with a cosmic awareness of Yahweh as Father of all that is (a preferential English translation). So cosmic awareness is not alien to the spirit of The Way of Jesus.
A cosmic awareness needs metanoia and new language for inclusive conversations; it is in the wind. I find entanglement in so many differing time-lines, so many strata of the shifting tempi for growth, maturity, and passing of life and all matter, to be mentally and logically exhausting, skirting the absurd. Looking to one another in living the time we have together seems the only antidote to shrieking paranoia. At the same time, I know that Sapiens can’t NOT ask questions, like:
>Earth is scheduled for a close-call from an asteroid in five more years. A collision course at another pass is not science fiction, but rather a task for a scientific solution to a problematic extra-solar-system transient. Are we confident that luck is on our side? Sapiens is not the only threat to mass extinctions, but it is the only consciousness that is unintentional about survival. How conscientious is that? Who but we ourselves can “prioritize” existence as we know it? Is there a future for Sapiens along with AI on this planet?
>Sol will expand to a red giant and swallow most of its near planets in five or six billion years– also not science fiction. Do our theological and theodical systems and syllogisms about infinitude and eternity take that into account? How can the future of matter be immaterial to spirituality?
In the name of the fathers, mothers and whole families everywhere, let us proceed for their sake. “Procedamus in pace.”
Many sincere thanks Dan!
Jack