At Lifesite News and elsewhere, commenters continue to defend Fr Gionet for allegedly doing no more than stating Catholic Doctrine. In his defence, they point to the following statement by him, in which he attempts to explain his words:
“I said: … ‘Today, it is we Catholics who are destroying our Catholic Church. We need only look at the number of abortions among Catholics, look at the homosexuals, and ourselves.’ (That’s when I pointed at my chest - through that action I wanted to say, we the priests) and I continued saying: We are destroying our church ourselves. And that’s when I said that those were the words expressed by Pope John Paul II. At that point, in the St-Leolin church only, I added: We can add to that the practice of watching ‘gay’ parades, we are encouraging this evil … What would you think of someone who seeing what was happening on (Sept.) 11, 2001, the crumbling of the towers, had begun clapping? We must not encourage evil, whatever form it takes.” (emphasis added).
In what way is this a simple statement of orthodox doctrine? The Catechism, and the CDF Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, both draw a clear distinction between homosexual persons and homosexual acts. Fr Gionet’s own attempted explanation shows clearly that what he was objecting to, was homosexuals themselves, not their acts ( except for the gay pride parades, to which I turn later). His apologists will probably argue that there is no “malice” intended in his words - but there most certainly is some in the more offensive comments by his defendants at Lifesite News.
Let’s remind ourselves of what the Church teaching on “homosexuals” really is:
It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the objects of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs…. The particular orientation of the homosexual is not a sin. (emphasis added).
-CDF Pastoral Letter
(Homosexual persons) must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
Homosexual persons are called to chastity
Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being.
-Catechism
Even if we accept that there is no malice in the text of the homily, intended or otherwise, there is certainly no sign of any “respect, compassion or sensitivity”, either.
Fr Gionet is a Canadian priest. I do not have any particular information on directives by the Canadian bishops specifically, but I do have those of the US bishops (collectively), and some others.
Homosexuals, like everybody else, should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights. They have a right to respect, friendship, and justice. They should have an active role in the Christian community.
“To live in Christ Jesus”, National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1976.
Generally, homosexual orientation is experienced as a given, not as something freely chosen. By itself, therefore, a homosexual orientation cannot be considered sinful, for morality presumes the freedom to choose. God loves every person as a unique individual. Sexual identity helps to define the unique persons that we are. One component of our sexual identity is our sexual orientation…..All homosexual persons have a right to be welcomed into the community….
“Always Our Children”, NCCB Committee on Marriage and Family, 1998
It’s important that Church ministers listen to the experiences , needs and hopes of the persons with a homosexual persons to whom they minister. Dialogue promotes an exchange of information , and also communicates a respect for the innate dignity of other persons and a respect for their consciences.
-Ministry to persons with a homosexual inclination: Guidelines for Pastoral Care, USCCB, 2006
There is absolutely no indication in Fr Gionet’s words, or in those of his defendants, of any interest in listening to our experiences as LGBT Catholics, nor of respect for our consciences. (Pope Benedict himself, as a younger man, has said that the demands of conscience must come above even obedience to the pope ).
One formation of the US Catholic Church that does attempt to listen and provide a structure for this much needed dialogue and listening process, is the Catholic Association for Lesbian and Gay Ministry (CALGM). In a useful recent book, Fr James A. Schexnayder discusses the theological and doctrinal reasons why Catholic parishes should be explicitly and publicly welcoming to all, including Catholics who are lesbian, gay or transgendered, and describes some examples of best practice by those parishes and dioceses that most effectively provide such a welcome.
One important observation he makes, with direct relevance to the gay pride parades that Fr Gionet is so much against, is
Some gay and lesbian persons reveal their orientation publicly for their own integrity or as a witness to others. The Whiteheads write of “a public witness to homosexual and Christian maturing and a gift to the next generation…. Closeted lives, however holy, cannot provide images and models of religious maturing. These Catholics can welcomed as role models and support persons for those who struggle with the integration of their sexual and religious lives.
-”Setting the Table”, p 54.
One part of this public witness, as I and many other LGBT Catholics have found in numerous major cities, is participation in gay pride parades. Elsewhere in the book (although I cannot right now find the exact reference), Fr Schexnayder recommends for this reason participation in gay pride parades by gay Catholics - and by implication (if not directly stated), also recommends that other members of parish communities would do well to support their LGBT parishioners by watching, or joining the parades themselves.
In other denominations, there is an obvious groundswell of recognition that the old horror of sexual minority groups in church is giving way to the recognition that the traditional interpretations of scripture on the subject are at least debatable, and that there is room in the church even for gay or lesbians clergy in committed, non-celibate relationships. There is also growing respect, and regulatory provision in some instances, for the possibility of same-sex weddings in church. The Catholic Church is a long way behind, but it is clear that it too, is moving in the direction of a dramatic change in tone at least - and probably for more fundamental change on formal doctrine (as on the rest of the peculiar and discredited sexual doctrine, such as on contraception and masturbation). Those who don’t like the prospect of change - had best learn to adjust.
Related articles
- Homophobic Priests: Doctrinally Correct, Pastorally Wrong.
- Priest’s Homophobic Homilies Get Him Barred From Saying Mass.
- Pope Benedict’s Remarkable Silence on Homosexuality
- Come Out, Stand Proud. (The Catechism Commands It!)
- Soft Bigotry (The Wild Reed)
- More on the “Soft Bigotry” of Fr. James Livingston’s Recent Op-Ed (The Wild Reed)
While I appreciate the tone of your article, I would like to point out something that often bothers me: cherry picking for the Catechism, documents of the Church, or scripture to prove a point. You used a few quotes from the Catechism, and I believe you did so appropriately. But if you are trying to prove that your stance is correct by pointing to what the Catholic Church teaches, or at least point out that at least others should listen to what the Church teaches, you are being either intellectually dishonest or unwillfully ignorant by picking only those parts that support your take and leaving out the bigger picture.
The Catechism in particular has alot to say about homosexuality, and a comprehensive reading of ALL the paragraphs paints a slightly different picture than what you are projecting here. Just for example, 2357 states that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” and that “Under no circumstances can they be approved”. This does not fly in the face of your quotes about respect, compassion and sensitivity, but it certainly gives credence to the belief that while everyone should respect all people as sons and daughters of God, regardless of the orientation, there are actions that are not in line with the Church’s understanding of sexuality. Anyone is free to disagree with that, but be cautious in trying to make a case that Fr.’s words were out of line with Church teaching by quoting a few lines in regards to pastoral sensitivity. Objectively speaking, I think he did reflect much of the Church’s teaching. Whether he did it sensitively enough or not is another debate (I wasn’t there so I cannot speak to that). One could certainly argue that something that “intrinsically disordered”Again, everyone is free to disagree with what the Catechism says (freedom of conscience), but if you are going to quote it to prove a point, be ready to stand by all that it has to say.
I agree with you that there are problems with cherry picking. That is precisely the point I was making - that his remarks were unbalanced.
I am fully aware of the other parts of Catechism statements, and also with the full text of Homosexualitatis Problema - all of which I have dealt with elsewhere, frequently and at length.
http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com/2011/09/would-diocese-of-bathurst-new-brunswick.html
If you have something to contribute, please do so yourself, instead of simply placing a link to someone else’s thoughts. Having read them, my response is to repeat the post’s closing words:
Here is one of the more salacious quotes from one of the addresses to which Ann’s link refers: ”Initiatives aimed at protecting the essential and primary values of life, beginning at conception, and of the family based on the indissoluble marriage between a man and a woman, help to respond to some of today’s most insidious and dangerous threats to the common good.”
The pope has a unique way of telling it like it is without sounding harsh. It is a real gift. Fr. Gionet was attacking such “insidious and dangerous threats” without discernible malice but also without the gentle firmness of Benedict. Give the guy a break; he wanted to prevent people from condemning themselves by receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin. This is something priests should do more often, and is a bare minimum requirement of pastoral care.
As far as attending gay pride parades: ask yourself if they are typically limited to celebration of the fact that homosexuality can be part of the unique make-up of a man, or do they also celebrate the gay “lifestyle,” gay eroticism, gay “marriage” legislation, and a multitude of sexual sins? A Catholic in good conscience cannot support any of these things. The pope has hinted at their insidious nature, and attending such a parade is a show of support. Fr. Gionet just made explicit the facts that stare us in the face as Catholics.
Even Christ was not always gentle in his rebukes. He said, ”Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. (father against son, etc. etc.)” In many instances Christ rebuked Peter and others. How do we reconcile this with our church which seeks to unify all men with Christ in the mystical body? The latter is a true unity in the Eucharist while the former is a superficial unity which must be divided, even separating families and congregations.
I suppose I did not read before posting. By “the former [unity]” in my last paragraph I meant the type of superficial unity a parish or other group of Catholics have when they simply ignore the Truth, when they are allowed to remain in mortal sin. Their coming together at the table simply masks the fact that they are eating and drinking their own condemnation.
Wow, instead of reading Ann’s article in it’s entirety, I instead immediately went to look for Benedict’s statement. It seems my point is made there, probably in better terms.
Pay no attention to Ann Duclos that is just Paul Melanson hiding behind one of his many pen names.