It is for this that we were born, it is this that we taste, it is to this that we are destined – lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, straight. It is our birthright.
Unnameable God, my essence;
my origin, my lifeblood, my home.20
________________________
20 Psalm 19, verse 14, translated by Stephen Mitchell , The enlightened heart, Harper and Row, New York, 1989.
And it all begins in the honest, earthy, human desire for love, for<</p>
sex, for communion and self-transcendence. It all begins in that
moment just before a small boy opens his Christmas present.
*
This essay was published in the anthology, Our families, our values: snapshots
of queer kinship, edited by Robert Goss, Haworth Press, Binghamton, NY,
1997.
Selective blessings that sully the faith
On Monday 27 October I was refused Holy Communion in St Patrick’s Cathedral because I am openly gay. Last Friday my sister rang me to say that the issue had been covered by Melbourne’s most popular newspaper cartoonist, Michael Leunig. ‘You know you’ve arrived when you make it into Leunig!’ she quipped. It’s a gentle enough cartoon – a priest holding the Communion plate asks a kneeling man if he is a ‘practising homosexual’. The man replies that he doesn’t need to practise, he has a ‘natural genius for it’. Like most Leunig cartoons it has a hidden depth.
Catholic moral theology has long condemned homosexuality because it is ‘unnatural’. However, more recent Church documents teach that homosexual orientation is ‘innate’ – or inborn – for many, that it is not chosen, that it is generally irreversible and that it may have a biological basis. Certainly this accords with the experience of very many homosexual people. Self-affirming gay and lesbian people have reached their sense of personal integration precisely by accepting that their sexual and affectional desires are deeply ‘natural’. We just have a ‘natural genius’ for it.
However, Catholic teaching also calls the homosexual orientation ‘an objective disorder’ and an ‘orientation to intrinsic moral evil’. Homosexual acts ‘can in no circumstances be approved’. If this sounds harsh, well, believe me, it is!
Imagine that you have a young teenager in your family, your classroom or your congregation. He or she is just beginning to feel that exhilarating surge of the hormones, those first crushes, that frightening, wondrous taste of the erotic, romantic dimension of life. Problem is, said teenager is simultaneously discovering that he or she is ‘innately’ homosexual. Exactly when and how will you go about telling him or her of their ‘objective disorder’ and their ‘orientation to intrinsic moral evil’? Let me quote from an American theologian and educator, Paul Giurlanda:
But let us carry the argument further: if the Church’s teaching is internalised what kind of life can he or she look forward to? This youth must recognise that every sexual impulse he or she will have is dangerous and evil… There is no possibility of using one’s sexuality someday in the service of love, since it is an inclination to evil. What other boys and girls are told, traditionally, is to ‘wait until marriage’. What these teenagers must be told is ‘wait until death’.
Small wonder that teenagers from religious homes are over-represented in youth suicide statistics, as recent studies suggest.
The Catholic hierarchy last week repeatedly said that the rules were the same for homosexuals as for heterosexuals. Since heterosexuals can marry and have active sex lives over many decades, this is hardly honest or fair. If only ‘practising homosexuals’ would repent and be celibate, the bishops pleaded, they would be welcome at Communion. They put this forward as if it were a simple matter. Lifelong celibacy is not a simple matter, even for the clergy. For your ordinary gay or lesbian person it is a cruel and almost impossible demand. A life lived in this spirit would hardly be likely to flower into peace, love and joy. Despair, isolation and self-hatred would be more likely.
Last week the Catholic hierarchy also said repeatedly that they were ‘bound by Church teaching’. Significantly, what I told the priest on 27 October was that I was ‘openly gay’, not that I was sexually active. There is nothing in Church law or teaching that says that someone must be refused Communion for simply revealing their sexual orientation, even if it is homosexual. What is demanded, however, is that such a person make no public disclosure about his or her sex life – if they have one. Individual Catholics always have the right to make ‘private decisions in conscience’, whether they concern contraception, for example, or homosexual sex. These decisions must always be respected – but they must remain private. So, an openly gay person who accepts this contract of public silence may be admitted to Communion. Simple enough. After much blustering and confusion, the Church hierarchy admitted as much late last week. So what was all the fuss really about?
Writer and gay Catholic, Andrew Sullivan, says that ‘homosexuality is not a new subject for the Roman Catholic Church. It is not a distant subject. It is at the very heart of the hierarchy, so every attempt to deal with it is terrifying.’ Did we see an example of this ‘terror’ last week? Yet homosexual people have always been present at every level of Church life. People as diverse as Native American tribes and psychologist Carl Jung have recognised the special gifts we carry for the spiritual and ritual lives of our communities. It is high time both our giftedness, and the sexual orientation underpinning it, were acknowledged and celebrated.
Of course, this would only be half the story. What of those of us who are public about being ‘practising homosexuals’ and who do challenge Church teaching? Are total silence or total exclusion the only options?
Father Maurice Shinnick, an Adelaide priest who recently published a book called This remarkable gift: being gay and Catholic, believes that ‘a critique of (the Vatican’s) teaching and method of imposing it on the whole Catholic Church must take place’. He calls for open dialogue on this issue, like the late Cardinal Bernadin of Chicago who said in 1996 ‘The Church must risk authentic dialogue…’
For myself, I would suggest the following course of action.
First, the hierarchy should give a guarantee that all priests, religious, teachers and Church workers can publicly reveal their sexual orientation without being sacked, suspended or having their careers derailed. Like unmarried heterosexual Church employees they would not be able to discuss their sexual lives. However, straight teachers, for example, are quite open about their orientation – why not gay teachers? And what could possibly be the problem with openly gay priests or lesbian nuns? They already have a public commitment to celibacy!
Second, an official diocesan ministry must be set up to provide education and pastoral care. It should be staffed by gay or gay-friendly psychologists, priests and teachers. Workshops, courses and counselling must be offered to counteract homophobia in classrooms and staff-rooms, and Catholic schools must be declared ‘safe places’ for gay and lesbian youth. Harassment and vilification must not be tolerated. The lives of our young people are at stake.
Third, the Church should set up an official ‘Year of Listening’. Gay and lesbian people must be invited to share the truth of our experience. This would be a new moment in the life of the Church, for we have never been listened to. Such a ‘Year of Listening’ could prepare the way for an Ecumenical Council that would examine sexuality as a whole and homosexuality in particular.
The above measures could be initiated immediately, even by Bishops who are ‘bound by Church teaching’. It is not that there is nothing to be done, it is whether we have the will. I remind the Bishops that there are also ‘sins of omission’: