|
|
|---|
|
by The Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith
1. The issue
of homosexuality and the moral evaluation of homosexual acts have increasingly
become a matter of public debate, even in Catholic circles. Since this debate
often advances arguments and makes assertions inconsistent with the teaching of
the Catholic Church, it is quite rightly a cause for concern to all engaged in
the pastoral ministry, and this Congregation has judged it to be of
sufficiently grave and widespread importance to address to the Bishops of the
Catholic Church this Letter on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.
2.
Naturally, an exhaustive treatment of this complex issue cannot be attempted
here, but we will focus our reflection within the distinctive context of the
Catholic moral perspective. It is a perspective which finds support in the more
secure findings of the natural sciences, which have their own legitimate and
proper methodology and field of inquiry.
However, the Catholic moral viewpoint is founded on human reason illumined by
faith and is consciously motivated by the desire to do the will of God our
Father. The Church is thus in a position to learn from scientific discovery but
also to transcend the horizons of science and to be confident that her more
global vision does greater justice to the rich reality of the human person in
his spiritual and physical dimensions, created by God and heir, by grace, to
eternal life.
It is
within this context, then, that it can be clearly seen that the phenomenon of
homosexuality, complex as it is, and with its many consequences for society and
ecclesial life, is a proper focus for the Church’s pastoral care. It thus
requires of her ministers attentive study, active concern and honest,
theologically well-balanced counsel.
3.
Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation’s
“Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” of
December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the
homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only
be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the
distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and
individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their
essential and indispensable finality, as being “intrinsically
disordered”, and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, §4).
In
the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an
overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some
going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. 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.
4. An
essential dimension of authentic pastoral care is the identification of causes
of confusion regarding the Church’s teaching. One is a new exegesis of
Sacred Scripture which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on
the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or
that all of its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer
applicable to contemporary life. These views are gravely erroneous and call for
particular attention here.
5. It
is quite true that the Biblical literature owes to the different epochs in
which it was written a good deal of its varied patterns of thought and
expression (Dei Verbum 12). The Church today addresses the Gospel to a world
which differs in many ways from ancient days. But the world in which the New
Testament was written was already quite diverse from the situation in which the
Sacred Scriptures of the Hebrew People had been written or compiled, for
example.
What
should be noticed is that, in the presence of such remarkable diversity, there
is nevertheless a clear consistency within the Scriptures themselves on the
moral issue of homosexual behaviour. The Church’s doctrine regarding this
issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument,
but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony. The community of
faith today, in unbroken continuity with the Jewish and Christian communities
within which the ancient Scriptures were written, continues to be nourished by
those same Scriptures and by the Spirit of Truth whose Word they are. It is
likewise essential to recognize that the Scriptures are not properly understood
when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church’s living
Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in
substantial accord with that Tradition.
The
Vatican Council II in Dei Verbum 10, put it this way: “It is clear,
therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition,
sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and
associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together,
each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all
contribute effectively to the salvation of souls”. In that spirit we wish
to outline briefly the Biblical teaching here.
6.
Providing a basic plan for understanding this entire discussion of
homosexuality is the theology of creation we find in Genesis. God, in his
infinite wisdom and love, brings into existence all of reality as a reflection
of his goodness. He fashions mankind, male and female, in his own image and
likeness. Human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God
himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect
the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in a striking way in their
cooperation with him in the transmission of life by a mutual donation of the
self to the other.
In
Genesis 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been
obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the
covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each
other. The human body retains its “spousal significance” but this is
now clouded by sin. Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin
continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral
judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and
20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to
the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave
in a homosexual fashion.
Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological
perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same
doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who
shall not enter the Kingdom of God.
In
Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in
the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society
of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which
has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and
creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral
excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than
homosexual relations. Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical
position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly
names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.
7.
The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the
sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving
union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital
relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person
engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.
To
chose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the
rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s
sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to
transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving
which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean
that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but
when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a
disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.
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.
8.
Thus, the Church’s teaching today is in organic continuity with the
Scriptural perspective and with her own constant Tradition. Though today’s
world is in many ways quite new, the Christian community senses the profound
and lasting bonds which join us to those generations who have gone before us,
“marked with the sign of faith”.
Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are
bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual
condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity.
Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with
those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision
opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the
mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a
materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person
as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.
The
Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will
not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of
the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create
confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion
to their own advantage.
9.
The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of
various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all
homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by
and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or
seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism
homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual
behaviour. 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.
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.
The
Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be
revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she
is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the
pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe
its deceitful propaganda. She 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.
10.
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.
11.
It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the
result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no
choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person,
even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.
Here,
the Church’s wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against
generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist,
or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability
of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it.
What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption
that the sexual behaviour 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. As in every
conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a
profound collaboration of the individual with God’s liberating grace.
12.
What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord?
Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by
joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their
condition to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross. That Cross, for the
believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and
redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a
Christian’s suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter
ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life
for all who follow Christ.
It
is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the
Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful
“love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness
and self-control” (5:22) and further (v. 24), “You cannot belong to
Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires.”
It is
easily misunderstood, however, if it is merely seen as a pointless effort at
self-denial. The Cross is a denial of self, but in service to the will of God
himself who makes life come from death and empowers those who trust in him to
practise virtue in place of vice.
To
celebrate the Paschal Mystery, it is necessary to let that Mystery become
imprinted in the fabric of daily life. To refuse to sacrifice one’s own
will in obedience to the will of the Lord is effectively to prevent salvation.
Just as the Cross was central to the expression of God’s redemptive love
for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and
women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of
self-giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens
to destroy them.
Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life.
As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God’s personal
call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more
faithfully and receive the Lord’s grace so freely offered there in order
to convert their lives more fully to his Way.
13.
We recognize, of course, that in great measure the clear and successful
communication of the Church’s teaching to all the faithful, and to society
at large, depends on the correct instruction and fidelity of her pastoral
ministers. The Bishops have the particularly grave responsibility to see to it
that their assistants in the ministry, above all the priests, are rightly
informed and personally disposed to bring the teaching of the Church in its
integrity to everyone.
The
characteristic concern and good will exhibited by many clergy and religious in
their pastoral care for homosexual persons is admirable, and, we hope, will not
diminish. Such devoted ministers should have the confidence that they are
faithfully following the will of the Lord by encouraging the homosexual person
to lead a chaste life and by affirming that person’s God-given dignity and
worth.
14.
With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially
cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her
teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their
public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity
by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example,
they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an
optional source for the formation of one’s conscience. Its specific
authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word
“Catholic” to describe either the organization or its intended
members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium;
indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to
conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching
of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the
Bishops in any way.
15.
We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with
the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No
authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual
persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual
activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for
homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.
We
would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we
wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or
silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor
pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the
Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the
care they need and deserve.
An
authentic pastoral programme will assist homosexual persons at all levels of
the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the
frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer,
witness, counsel and individual care. In such a way, the entire Christian
community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and
sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.
16.
From this multi-faceted approach there are numerous advantages to be gained,
not the least of which is the realization that a homosexual person, as every
human being, deeply needs to be nourished at many different levels
simultaneously.
The
human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately
described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every
one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but
challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church
provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she
refuses to consider the person as a “heterosexual” or a
“homosexual” and insists that every person has a fundamental
Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal
life.
17.
In bringing this entire matter to the Bishops’ attention, this
Congregation wishes to support their efforts to assure that the teaching of the
Lord and his Church on this important question be communicated fully to all the
faithful.
In
light of the points made above, they should decide for their own dioceses the
extent to which an intervention on their part is indicated. In addition, should
they consider it helpful, further coordinated action at the level of their
National Bishops’ Conference may be envisioned.
In a
particular way, we would ask the Bishops to support, with the means at their
disposal, the development of appropriate forms of pastoral care for homosexual
persons. These would include the assistance of the psychological, sociological
and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church.
They
are encouraged to call on the assistance of all Catholic theologians who, by
teaching what the Church teaches, and by deepening their reflections on the
true meaning of human sexuality and Christian marriage with the virtues it
engenders, will make an important contribution in this particular area of
pastoral care.
The
Bishops are asked to exercise special care in the selection of pastoral
ministers so that by their own high degree of spiritual and personal maturity
and by their fidelity to the Magisterium, they may be of real service to
homosexual persons, promoting their health and well-being in the fullest sense.
Such ministers will reject theological opinions which dissent from the teaching
of the Church and which, therefore, cannot be used as guidelines for pastoral
care.
We
encourage the Bishops to promote appropriate catechetical programmes based on
the truth about human sexuality in its relationship to the family as taught by
the Church. Such programmes should provide a good context within which to deal
with the question of homosexuality.
This
catechesis would also assist those families of homosexual persons to deal with
this problem which affects them so deeply.
All
support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the
teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it
entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely
misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling
religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups,
including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such
permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in
reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were
founded, it is misleading and often scandalous.
In
assessing proposed legislation, the Bishops should keep as their uppermost
concern the responsibility to defend and promote family life.
18.
The Lord Jesus promised, “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set
you free” (Jn. 8:32). Scripture bids us speak the truth in love
(cf. Eph. 4:15). The God who is at once truth and love calls the Church
to minister to every man, woman and child with the pastoral solicitude of our
compassionate Lord. It is in this spirit that we have addressed this Letter to
the Bishops of the Church, with the hope that it will be of some help as they
care for those whose suffering can only be intensified by error and lightened
by truth.
(During an audience granted to the undersigned Prefect, His Holiness, Pope
John Paul II, approved this Letter, adopted in an ordinary session of the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ordered it to be
published.)
Given at Rome, 1 October 1986.
JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER
Prefect
ALBERTO BOVONE
Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Numidia
Secretary
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!
