Those who are knowledgeable on these matters say the announcements from the Vatican Synod are radical. One document stated: “Without denying the moral problems connected to homosexual unions it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.”
Rev. James Martin, a Catholic writer with the Jesuit magazine America, told the Washington Post:
“The Synod said that gay people have ‘gifts and talents to offer the Christian community.’ This is something that even a few years ago would have been unthinkable, from even the most open-minded of prelates—that is, a statement of outright praise for the contribution of gays and lesbians, with no caveat and no reflexive mention of sin. … That any church document would praise same-sex ‘partners’ in any way (and even use the word ‘partners’) is astonishing.”
While it’s good to see some forward movement from the Church of Rome, it seems to me that these are baby steps compared to where, say, the Episcopal Church and a few other denominations have gone, in term of celebrating same-sex marriages and ordaining gay clergy, for starters. Still, one can say of the Vatican’s moves, they’re in the right direction.
Update. Yes, very small baby steps: “Amid an outcry from conservatives over the document, organizers of the synod insisted Tuesday that the report was merely a working paper that would be amended and that its value had been overstated by the media.”
More. Andrew Sullivan shared his views, which are much more positive toward the RCC (his church) than mine.
13 Comments for “The Vatican Rag”
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
The decision making processes at the Vatican is a complicated matter, for Catholics and non-Catholics alike.
Lots of other Vatican ‘actors’, as they say in politics, come into play, and change is a slow and delicate balance, if at all.
Mostly we are seeing a change in tone and style.
posted by Jorge on
Those who are knowledgeable on these matters say the announcements from the Vatican Synod are radical.
Bwa-hahahahahaha!
No.
First of all, if you read the entire document’s English translation:
http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/13/0751/03037.html
You will be struck by the stark change in tone between all the things it says about families and individuals impacted by divorce, cohabitation, individualism, and so on (it’s a very validating and beautiful read), and the completely tentative tone it takes about homosexuality. Where the report makes declarative statements with scriptural backing and colorful language about about other family situations, what it says about homosexuality takes the far more tentative form of questions: are we capable of welcoming them? And that’s not even couples, that’s people. Is the Church capable of both providing a home to gays “without compromising Catholic doctrine on the family and matrimony?” What little it says positively about gay couples is, “it has to be noted that there are cases in which mutual aid to the point of sacrifice constitutes a precious support in the life of the partners.” Well, duh! Saying things that are drop dead obvious is pretty par for the course for the Catholic Church when it moves in a “progressive” direction.
No, there is only a change in energy and resolution, to try to make real the Church’s own teachings about tolerance which have already existed for decades. Far more valuable so far as gays should be concerned is everything else in the report that talks in broad terms about approach and mission. “Evangelizing is the shared responsibility of all God’s people, each according to his or her own ministry and charism. Without the joyous testimony of spouses and families, the announcement, even if correct, risks being misunderstood or submerged by the ocean of words that is a characteristic of our society.” I have been saying for years that the Catholic Church’s documents and theology on homosexuality are not better appreciated by the public because of how silent the Church is on day-to-day events. The report from the Synod reflects a good understanding of this. That is Pope Francis’s contribution to the foundation laid by Pope Benedict, and I am not just talking about homosexuality.
There is one more thing worth pointing out. People like to say it’s hypocritical for people to complain about gay marriage when the state of marriage is in such poor state for so many other reasons. Well, this report speaks directly to how to minister to and appreciate that while still standing for sacramental marriage. It seems to me that, ironically, when the Catholic Church becomes more competent in responding to the decline of marriage on all these other fronts, that is what will be the foundation for a growing acceptance of gay couples.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I am not a Catholic (nor Christian) – but one only needs to read the emphatic denials by American Archbishops to realize that this ‘step’ isn’t quite what it’s being portrayed to be.
First, the general synod actually happens next year (2015). This is an “extraordinary synod” specifically addressing marriage and family. It is a precursor to next year’s larger meeting. And the language being discussed – as Jorge notes, very tentative language that only asks how the Church should treat gays and lesbians – is up for edit and revision. And that will almost assuredly happen between now and 2015.
Just a quick perusal on google will bring you to statements from several of the notable archconservative archbishops (Dolan, etc…) that definitely put an end to this new ‘tolerance-towards-gays’ meme that was spread on the ‘net the past 2 days.
posted by Jorge on
Dolan?
Dolan said he wasn’t at all purturbed by the report.
posted by Jorge on
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cardinal-timothy-dolan-says-vatican-document-addressing-gays-needs-major-reworking/
Among the pieces of controversy is a section titled, “Welcoming Homosexual Persons,” where it says, “Homosexuals have gifts and qualities to offer to the Christian community. Are we capable of welcoming these people, guaranteeing to them a fraternal space in our communities?”
Dolan argues it’s something that the Catholic Church is already doing.
“Look, you’re talking to the Archbishop of New York. I find it news that some people would still consider this news,” he said.
(The Archbishop of New York should know gay activists’ perceptions better than that. He either has selective memory or a selective attention span.)
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
Here’s the Vatican’s reply to the recent reports that the Catholic Church is changing its language, or even its tone, to gays and lesbians:
“”It’s not what we’re saying at all.”
In response to such reactions, the Vatican backtracked a bit Tuesday. In a statement, it said the report on gays and lesbians was a “working document,” not the final word from Rome.
The Vatican also said that it wanted to welcome gays and lesbians in the church, but not create “the impression of a positive evaluation” of same-sex relationships…” CNN
And here’s the CNN article describing the immediate backlash to even the possibility that the Catholic Church might be softening its stance:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/14/world/vatican-backtrack-gays/index.html
posted by Houndentenor on
There was nothing radical in any of that. It was just an incredibly obvious (to anyone who isn’t an idiot like the tv talking heads that plague the 24 hour “news channels”) attempt to make the very anti-gay church seem less bigoted. There was NO change in policy or doctrine whatsoever. So why all the hooplah? Because lapsed Catholics and moderates and liberals are looking for any sign of progressive movement on the part of RCC. Some of us are not so easily appeased by window dressing. And typically there has already been a walk-back of this “leak”.
posted by Jorge on
There was nothing radical in any of that. It was just an incredibly obvious (to anyone who isn’t an idiot like the tv talking heads that plague the 24 hour “news channels”) attempt to make the very anti-gay church seem less bigoted.
Now, see, it’s the prevalence of just this kind of misguided (at best) myth that gives credence to such loopy interpretations as “radical very small baby steps.”
It is quite well that the Catholic Church is not going to rely just on its priests and public statements to do its preaching for it, because this media has cursed it as bad as King Midas. Everything the Church touches turns to gay.
posted by Clayton on
Maybe thirty years ago I would have been excited about a change in the RCC’s tone.
Today? Well, after several decades of being told that I wasn’t welcome at the party, I no longer have any desire to attend. There are lots of other parties, after all.
And what is this about “Homosexuals have gifts to offer?” It seems to translate to “We’re happy to have our choir directors and our organists, and we’ll accept donations from gay people and let them attend services. But they better not expect sacraments! Or equality!”
Bitch, please!
posted by Doug on
It appears that whatever small opening was suggested has been slammed shut again.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/18/catholic-bishops-gays_n_6008300.html
posted by Jorge on
Not since Michael Jackson have we seen such radical steps forward. Mr. Miller seems reluctant to talk about it (and so am I).
Ah, the AP article. I think the beginning over-interprets and editorializes a bit, but it otherwise seems a complete rundown.
I am glad the bishops caught on to and protested against the irresponsible and sensationalist way this story has been reported, although some Catholic authorities are equally to blame for sensationalist interpretation. I’ll let the rest of the article speak for itself.
An article by the Christian Science Monitor reports that some Catholic observers consider the discussions of the synod to reflect a “huge achievement.”
http://news.yahoo.com/catholic-synod-gays-made-history-even-disappointing-end-120217123.html
For his part, Francis took heart in the “animated” nature of the discussions. “Personally I would have been very worried and saddened if there hadn’t been these … animated discussions … or if everyone had been in agreement or silent in a false and acquiescent peace.”
Indeed, the fact that the discussions were held at all was a “huge achievement in itself,” Christopher Lamb of British Catholic journal The Tablet told the BBC, noting that many of the bishops were from countries where homosexuality is illegal. “We have now got an acceptance that we need a new language in the Church when talking about gay couples and homosexuality in general.”
Even the watered-down language of the final report points to potential shifts within the church, added the BBC’s Vatican correspondent, David Willey. Some 118 of the 180 bishops voted to welcome homosexuals “with respect and delicacy.”
And remember, it is alleged that some voted against the watered down version to stand for the original version.
I think this is all right. What remains now is the authority of the bishop of priest to carry out existing doctrine, which would be very helpful if it actually were carried out. We have a large majority of attending bishops calling for the need for a compassionate approach to gay people in the community, but they do not agree on how to do so. There are many situations in which the Catholic Church cites a principle for social order reasons and leaves it to the local Church to advise people on how to carry it out, based on the needs and norms of the community in a particular place and time. A greater awareness of the need for local leadership can be helpful.
posted by Jorge on
It doesn’t look like they have an English translation up. Anyone read Italian?
http://press.vatican.va/content/salastampa/en/bollettino/pubblico/2014/10/18/0770/03044.html
Actually Google Translate gives a remarkably florid translation, but keep an Engilsh translation of the original handy.
As reported, they included all the paragraphs, even the ones voted down, then they showed the tally of votes at the end. A 2/3 vote was needed to include each paragraph, so paragraphs 52, 53, and 55 did not pass.
The paragraph on homosexuality failed by TWO votes… and it’s so much nothing I can see why it’s being reported it was voted down as a protest vote. Most of it quotes from my favorite source: “There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.” Nonetheless, men and women with homosexual tendencies must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 4. (The article I cited above says “respect and delicacy,” but the official translation of Conisiderations says “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” so I am treating it as a direct quote. This is not new language at all.)
It’s almost like they voted down the former Cardinal Ratzinger. This isn’t the last word.
What remains is the title (The pastoral care of people with homosexual orientation) and a paragraph, with a slight alteration from the original, that says it is entirely unacceptable for Church pastors to be pressured on this matter, or for international bodies to condition financial aid to poor countries on the introduction of laws establishing same-sex marriage.
They definitely made an increased emphasis on doctrine, and on highlighting families in faithful marriage as examples. Then they point to the problem of wounded families–cohabitation, civil marriage, families divroced and remarried, and also youth who do not enter marriages. And it generally says the Church should minister to them and show them the way, the Church looks to them with love, God does work with these families in their own lives. It’s not bad. I kinda like it. The votes on some of these paragraphs were a little closer but they passed. I think it is quite fair for the Church’s bishops to be less than unanimous but overall supportive of the need to minister very forthrightly to cohabiting couples, and then undecided about how to minister to gays.
posted by Jorge on
Notice the very Ratzingerian foot-stamping
Only “very”?
I’m tempted to post the paragraph at work after receiving an email that this is LGBT history month or something, but I think it’s too daring. I really must find a good internet picture of a Cardinal in a tank. I only have a holy Rottweiler.
Fine, I’ll read Francis’s speech. I’m looking for some good words of his to put up at work, too. It’s very hard to capture his spirit without using easily recognizable quotes. His words are just too profound. His vision is very difficult to understand intellectually–it is truth.