|
|
|---|
|
Revised statement issued on July 22, 1992 by the
Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
Foreword
Recently,
legislation has been proposed in various places which would make discrimination
on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. In some cities, municipal
authorities have made public housing, otherwise reserved for families,
available to homosexual (and unmarried heterosexual) couples. Such initiatives,
even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than
condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may in fact have
a negative impact on the family and society. Such things as the adoption of
children, the employment of teachers, the housing needs of genuine families,
landlords’ legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for
example, are often implicated.
While
it would be impossible to anticipate every eventuality in respect to
legislative proposals in this area, these observations will try to identify
some principles and distinctions of a general nature which should be taken into
consideration by the conscientious legislator, voter, or church authority who
is confronted with such issues.
The
first section will recall relevant passages from the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith’s ‘Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church
on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons’ of 1986. The second section
will deal with their application.
I.
Relevant Passages from the CDF’s ‘Letter’
1.
The letter recalls that the CDF’s ‘Declaration on Certain Questions
Concerning Sexual Ethics’ of 1975 ‘took note of the distinction
commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual
homosexual actions"; the latter are “intrinsically disordered” and
‘in no case to be approved of" (No. 3).
2.
Since “[i]n the discussion which followed the publication of the
(aforementioned) declaration ..., an overly benign interpretation was given to
the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral or
even good,’ the letter goes on to clarify: ‘Although the particular
inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong
tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination
itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and
pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition,
lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in
homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not’ (No. 3).
3.
‘As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own
fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The
church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit
but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically
understood’ (No. 7).
4. In
reference to the homosexual movement, the letter states: ‘One tactic used
is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual
people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust
discrimination’ (No. 9).
5.
‘There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the church by gaining
the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil
statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure
groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if
not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may
seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its
advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks
involved’ (No. 9)
6.
‘She (the church) is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is
equivalent to or as acceptable as the sexual expression of conjugal love has a
direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the
family and puts them in jeopardy’ (No. 9)
7.
‘It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of
violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation
from the church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of
disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a
healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected
in word, in action and in law.
‘But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons
should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When
such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or
when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has
any conceivable right, neither the church nor society at large should be
surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and
irrational and violent reactions increase (No. 10).
8.
“What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning
assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally
compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental
liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be
recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well’ (No. 11).
9.
“In assessing proposed legislation, the bishops should keep as their
uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and promote family life’
(No. 17).
II. Applications
10.
“Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to
race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these,
homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. “Letter,” No. 3)
and evokes moral concern.
11.
There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual
orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for
adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in
military recruitment.
12.
Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons
including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their
personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right
to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can
be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is
sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in
the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically
or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise
of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in
order to protect the common good.
13.
Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the
basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding
homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to
so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices.
This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf.
No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The
passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is
illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the
legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person’s
homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and
thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of
the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human
rights.
14.
The “sexual orientation” of a person is not comparable to race, sex,
age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants
attention. An individual’s sexual orientation is generally not known to
others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or
unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of
homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize
their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of
employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.
Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those
who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be “either completely
harmless, if not an entirely good thing’ (cf. No. 3), and hence worthy of
public approval. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those
who seek to ”manipulate the church by gaining the often well-intentioned
support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws" (cf.
No. 5), those who use the tactic of protesting that “any and all criticism
of or reservations about homosexual people . .. are simply diverse forms of
unjust discrimination” (cf. No. 9).
In
addition, there is a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a
basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual
orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to
exploit the provisions of the law.
15.
Since in the assessment of proposed legislation uppermost concern should be
given to the responsibility to defend and promote family life (cf. No. 17),
strict attention should be paid to the single provisions of proposed measures.
How would they affect adoption or foster care? Would they protect homosexual
acts, public or private? Do they confer equivalent family status on homosexual
unions, for example, in respect to public housing or by entitling the
homosexual partner to the privileges of employment which could include such
things as “family” participation in the health benefits given to
employees (cf. No. 9)?
16.
Finally, where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate
for church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation
even if it grants exceptions to church organizations and institutions. The
church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of
the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply
to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. No. 17).
Join our Women Priests' Mailing List
for occasional newsletters:
An email will be immediately sent to you
requesting your confirmation.
Please bookmark us & tell your friends about our website
Stumble
Reddit
Squidoo
Facebook
Del.icio.us
Digg
Slashdot
Fark
Furl
Newsvine
Magnolia
BlinkList
Spurl
Simpy
Do not forget to say a good word about us on your blog
Put a link to us on your own website
Make our website one of your favourites
Google
MyYahoo
Live
Ask
Netscape
Please, credit this document as
published by www.womenpriests.org!
