LGBT inclusion in church, marriage and family equality

Vatican Spokesman Accepts Legal Recognition of Same - Sex Unions

The orthotoxic Catholic blogosphere is in a frenzy over reports that Fr Frederico Lombardi has expressed some support for the legal recognition of same - sex unions. All refer back for their source, to an Italian blogpost by Rossoporpora, which leads one of these English language posters to say that he is sceptical of these stories, because he’s done an internet search, and could not find any further reports to confirm the statement - refers back to the same source. I’ve also done a similar internet search - but using the Italian text quoted by Rossoporpora. I initially thought I had found the original report at Zenit - but in fact that is a later post, based, once again, Rossoporpora,

So here’s the key passage, first in Italian:

Da noi interpellato poi per una sua valutazione dell’approvazione parlamentare definitiva da parte dell’Assemblea nazionale francese della rivoluzione antropologica in materia di famiglia, padre Lombardi ha risposto che “è buona cosa che un bambino sappia che ha un padre e una madre”: si deve “chiaramente evidenziare che il matrimonio tra un uomo e una donna è un’istituzione specifica e fondamentale nella storia dell’umanità. Ciò non toglie che si possano riconoscere in qualche modo altre forme di unione tra due persone”.

-Rossoporpora

Pay attention to the sentence highlighted: it’s absolutely crucial, but the English translation is not at all clear. After I initially published this story this morning, I began to doubt the accuracy of the translation and interpretations I had been seeing originally. I now have two conflicting versions - one supporting what has been an increasing move towards acceptance, one which completely contradicts and undermines that view. I am awaiting help with a reliable translation. Here are the two conflicting versions:

Rorate Caeli gives this translation:

“[I]t is a good thing for the child to know that he has a father and a mother”; [it must be] “made clear that matrimony between a man and a woman is a specific and fundamental institution in the history of mankind.This does not prevent that other forms of union between two persons may be recognized“.

but, the Google translation appears to state the exact opposite. In the comment thread, a contributor to Rorate Caeli defends their translation over Google translate, in some detail:

“Ciò”: this, what has just been said (that is, the concept of marriage)

“non toglie”: does not prevent, is not an impediment

“che si possano riconoscere”: that [one] may recognize, the recognition

“in qualche modo”: in some way

“altre forme di unione”: some other kinds of union[s]

“tra due persone”: between two persons

The advice I have now received from a valued collaborator and skilled translator, is that this should read:

[When] we then asked him for his evaluation of the final parliamentary approval by the French National Assembly of the anthropological revolution in the family sphere, Father Lombardi said “it is a good thing for a child to know it has a father and a mother”: one has to “clearly show that marriage between one/a man and one/a woman is a fundamental institution in the history of mankind. This does not mean that one cannot recognise in some way other forms of union between two persons.

Quite apart from doubts over translation, there is still another reason to be cautious, because his acceptance is so heavily qualified.

Su quanto accaduto in Francia, padre Lombardi ha rilevato che “l’approvazione non lo rallegra”, evidenziando anche le competenze della Conferenza episcopale francese in materia (il portavoce dei vescovi Bernard Podvin ha espresso “profonda tristezza”). Per quanto riguarda eventuali reazioni papali, “è il Papa che deve parlare, lascio parlare lui”.

 

About what happened in France, Father Lombardi noted that “the approval does not rejoice”, also highlighting the skills of the French Bishops’ Conference on the subject (the spokesman for the bishops Bernard Podvin expressed “deep sadness”). With regard to possible reactions papal “is the Pope who must speak, let him speak.”

Cautious though they are, these words are still noteworthy and welcome, as being a part of a much wider trend towards acceptance of civil unions by increasing numbers of Catholic bishops, at increasingly senior levels of the Church

The reference to “the skills of the French Bishops’ Conference on the subject” is important. In their most complete and authoritative commentary, they were uncompromising in their rejection of gay marriage, but equally explicit (respecting scientific evidence on the nature of committed, loving same - sex relationships) in advocating for a strengthening of the existing PACS system of civil unions. This leads me to conclude, for now, that the translation and interpretation placed on Fr Lombardi’s words by Rorate Caeli and the like, probably are a better version than that coming from Google translate.

Irrespective though, of this particular incident, it is clear that change is in the air. Fr Lombardi is of course not a bishop, but he is the official spokesman for the pope, and highly respected for the skill with which he conducts his task. (He was recently given a major professional award in recognition of this). The words quoted were also made in a formal press conference, where he was speaking on behalf of the pope. His response to the question will be widely interpreted as reflecting the thinking of Pope Francis himself, and will encourage many more bishops who up to now have been supportive but unwilling to speak out publicly, to do so. Others who have been unsure, will now be persuaded to come down on the side of support, either from conviction or from political prudence. And still more who have until now been publicly opposed to all forms of legal recognition, will find that in the changed mood in the Vatican, it has become more prudent to keep those opinions to themselves.

Contrary to popular belief, history shows that orthodox Catholic belief really does evolve, but glacially slowly (and usually in response to changes in popular thinking). In the secular world, the shift to popular acceptance of full marriage has been remarkable for its speed. Compared with the secular shift, Catholic bishops’ thinking has been excruciatingly slow - but compared with its usual reluctance to adapt, this shift has been equally remarkable - and once again, is a response to changes in the real world political balance. That balance will continue to shift in the years to come, and more and more bishops will have to deal with the simple reality of legally married same - sex couples in their communities, and in their congregations. Their thinking too, will continue to evolve. For now, there is an emerging consensus in favour of limited, hesitant acceptance of legal recognition of our relationships, but no more. Still to come, is serious consideration of the value of our relationships, the importance and value of celebrating these unions not only with legal contracts, but in church.

Later, there will follow a more complete re-evaluation of the real meaning of marriage, going beyond the simple platitudes that are currently being spouted - and eventually, consideration of acceptance or celebration of full marriage equality.

The Pastoral Republican clearly does not like this development - but he is spot on in his interpretation of its significance:

Fr. Lombardi is the proverbial trial balloon. He knows that F. supports civil unions; is only preparing us for the pontifical announcement; and hoping that the outcry of the faithful and criticism of F. will have low decibels–more like a drop of a pin than the din of an explosion of moral heresy.

To what I just said above concerning civil unions, I might add that the next phase of this “renovationism” will be the end of priestly celibacy (which F. has described as not required). Then when celibacy is trashed, will homosexual priests be allowed civil unions?

It even becomes possible to imagine the following question and response:

“Should Catholic priests be allowed to marry?”

“Only if they love each other”.

(Update: since becoming aware of the conflicting translations after originally posting this, I have had several rewrites, to take account of the new information I was finding. The version above differs substantially from my earlier posting, but reflects the latest state of my knowledge on the matter).

Updated listing of supportive cardinals and bishops:

Books

(links to Amazon.co.uk, UK)

Boswell, John: Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (Harper-Collins, 1994)412 pages

Comstock, Gary David: Gay Theology Without Apology

Glaser, Chris: As My Own Soul: The Blessing of Same-Gender Marriage (Seabury Books)

Heyward, Carter: Touching Our Strength: The Erotic as Power and the Love of God

Hunt, Mary: Fierce Tenderness: Feminist Theology of Friendship (Crossroad, 1991)

Jennings, Theodore W. The Man Jesus Loved (Pilgrim Press)

Jordan, Mark: Blessing Same-sex Unions: The Perils of Queer Romance and the Confusions of Christian Marriage(Univ of Chicago Press)

Moore, Gareth OP: A Question of Truth : Christianity & Homosexuality(Continuum Books, 2003)

Stuart, Elisabeth: Just Good Friends: Towards a Lesbian and Gay Theology of Relationships (Mowbray, 1995)

Sullivan, Andrew: Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality(Picador, 1995)

Sullivan, Andrew: Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Survival(Chatto & Windus, 1998)

Sullivan, Andrew: Same-Sex Marriage: Pro and Con

Vasey, M: Strangers and Friends: New Exploration of Homosexuality and the Bible

 

Books

(links to Amazon.com, USA)

Boswell, John: Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (Harper-Collins, 1994) 412 pages

Glaser, Chris: As My Own Soul: The Blessing of Same-Gender Marriage (Seabury Books)

Hunt, Mary: Fierce Tenderness: A Feminist Theology of Friendship (Crossroad, 1991)

Jennings, Theodore W. The man jesus loved (Pilgrim Press)

Jordan, Mark: Blessing Same-Sex Unions: The Perils of Queer Romance and the Confusions of Christian Marriage (Univ of Chicago Press)

Stuart, Elisabeth: Just Good Friends: Towards a Lesbian and Gay Theology of Relationships (Mowbray, 1995)

Sullivan, Andrew: Virtually Normal: An Argument About Homosexuality (Picador, 1995)

Sullivan, Andrew: Love Undetectable: Notes on Friendship, Sex, and Survival (Chatto & Windus, 1998)

Vasey, M: Strangers and friends: A new exploration of homosexuality and the Bible

Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

9 comments for “Vatican Spokesman Accepts Legal Recognition of Same - Sex Unions”

  1. Chris Sullivan
    April 30, 2013 at 9:01 am

    Did you mean:

    “This does not mean that one CANNOT recognize in some way other forms of union between two people.”

    which seems to say more what I think you mean ?

    Perhaps the next step, driven by practical realities, may be to recognise that gay marriage is not sinful; how can it be sinful for two people to publicly pledge their love in good times ad in bad, in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad ?

    In Catholic theology, the matter of the sacrament of marriage is this mutual pledge, which I note says nothing about sexual complementarity or anything about sex.

    God Bless

    Reply
    • Terence Weldon
      April 30, 2013 at 11:41 am

      Since originally posting, Chris, I’ve been left completely confused by diametrically opposed translations of Lombardi’s reported words, and have substantially rewritten my post to reflect this. Right now, my best guess is that there has been both a misreporting and a compensating mistranslation - which leads to a formulation similar to that which you give. Try as I might, I cannot find a way to get the original Italian to represent support for any form of recognition. The Google version appears to be clumsy, but accurate. On the other hand, such a blanket rejection does not square with Lombardi’s statement of respect for the skill of the French bishops’ response, which drew a clear distinction between rejecting marriage, and accepting legal protections in civil unions.

      However, I strongly suspect that this fuss over legal protections and legal status will soon pale into insignificance. You’r absolutely right that inevitably, this will lead to a more fundamental, theological respect for gay relationships in themselves, and of the value of celebrating and blessing them in the faith community. Such a development, which must soon start to find serious discussion and consideration, will be obviously incompatible with the present assumption of their sinful nature.

      Add in supplementary news from Germany of support from the top for women deacons, for greater inclusion of divorced persons in church life and activities, and a revision of current employment laws that rule out teaching and other jobs with church employers for all those with unorthodox lifestyles (and that includes all those in civil parnterships), and it is obvious that real change is on the way.

      Reply
    • Terence Weldon
      April 30, 2013 at 11:57 pm

      I’ve now had confirmation from a good friend with solid knowledge of Italian and experience in professional translating, that a suitable translation of the reported Italian is:

      [When] we then asked him for his evaluation of the final parliamentary approval by the French National Assembly of the anthropological revolution in the family sphere, Father Lombardi said “it is a good thing for a child to know it has a father and a mother”: one has to “clearly show that marriage between one/a man and one/a woman is a fundamental institution in the history of mankind. This does not mean that one cannot recognise in some way other forms of union between two persons.

      Reply
  2. Martin
    May 1, 2013 at 8:39 am

    From my own understanding and fluency in Italian understanding of this: “Ciò non toglie che si possano riconoscere in qualche modo altre forme di unione tra due persone”.

    Literally: Such that this does detract / take away that it is possible to recognise / we can recognise in some way other forms of union between two people.

    Martin

    Reply
    • Terence Weldon
      May 2, 2013 at 9:36 pm

      Thanks, Martin. Since my original confusion, I’ve reached some confidence that your reading is correct.

      Reply
  3. Pingback: Vatican Shift on Civil Unions Is Result of a Prophetic Laity | Bondings 2.0
  4. Mike Bizzaro
    May 2, 2013 at 8:20 pm

    Lombardi is not a Catholic bishop, he is an automatically excommunicated group leader for Satan’s vatican-2 heretic cult that was founded at the “vatican-2 council” in 1965.

    The Vatican-2 heretic cult (founded in 1965 at the Vatican) *cannot possibly be* the Catholic Church … since it *enforces* the opposite, the opposite, and the opposite of the Catholic Dogma.

    The Catholic Church has lost ALL of it’s formerly Catholic properties to the vatican-2 heretic cult … despite this you can still be Catholic and get to Heaven.

    Proofs > Immaculata-one.com > Sections 12 and 13 and their sub-sections

    Reply
  5. William Lindsey
    May 4, 2013 at 8:35 pm

    Terry, thank you for this valuable list of books, with helpful links-a really great resource.

    Reply
  6. Pingback: Civil Unions: “Signs of a Thaw in Vatican City?”Queering the Church | Queering the Church

Leave a Reply