Catholic Teaching on Same – Sex Relationships: An “Ongoing Discussion”?

Cardinal Francis George has apologized for his comparison of the KKK and “some gay activists”.

 

ARCHDIOCESE OF CHICAGO

Statement from Francis Cardinal George, OMI
Archbishop of Chicago
January 6, 2012

During a recent TV interview, speaking about this year’s Gay Pride Parade, I used an analogy that is inflammatory.

I am personally distressed that what I said has been taken to mean that I believe all gays and lesbians are like members of the Klan. I do not believe that; it is obviously not true. Many people have friends and family members who are gay or lesbian, as have I. We love them; they are part of our lives, part of who we are. I am deeply sorry for the hurt that my remarks have brought to the hearts of gays and lesbians and their families.

I can only say that my remarks were motivated by fear for the Church’s liberty. This is a larger topic that cannot be explored in this expression of personal sorrow and sympathy for those who were wounded by what I said.

Francis Cardinal George, OMI

The apology is clear, straightforward, and unreserved. It should be welcomed, and accepted similarly without reservation. As noted by Francis DeBernardo of New Ways Ministry, this is huge.

The significance of this action is immense.  For the first time that I can remember, a prelate has acknowledged that words and ideas he has used in regard to the LGBT community were harmful, and he has apologized for the hurt they caused.

Significant, too, is the fact that he acknowledges that he has family members who are gay/lesbian, and that he loves them.  It is rare that a prelate speaks personally, let alone personally and positively about LGBT people.

The apology is welcome, for what it says, and for what it promises. The original remarks were offensive and insensitive, as Cardinal George himself now recognizes, and caused an entirely natural outcry.  Others, as Advocatus Diaboli explained in a post here yesterday, were outraged by what he saw as a disproportionate response to the Cardinal’s words.

I am more interested in where this takes us, for the future. I believe that there are three important features to this that we should be grateful for, as we move into 2012.

First, is the apology itself. The mere fact that it has been made, is significant. As DeBernardo observes, this is unusual for a Catholic bishop. It is possible (likely?) that having been led to make it, Cardinal George may have learned something from the debacle, and may exercising greater care in choosing his words in future.

Second, is his acknowledgement that he has gay and lesbian family, himself. That he has them, is unremarkable. What matters, is that he has recognized and acknowledged them, Most people have queer relatives – but often without their knowing. Being open with family forces them to deal with “the gays” as a private reality, not just a public abstract. It is also significant that he has explicitly used the words “gay and lesbian”, terminology that the Vatican has previously tried hard to avoid.

Third, is a statement attributed to the Cardinal at the end of a Chicago Tribune report on the story:

George said although church teaching does not judge same-sex relationships as morally acceptable, it does encourage the faithful to “respect everyone.”

“The question is, ‘Does respect mean that we have to change our teaching?’ That’s an ongoing discussion, of course. … I still go back to the fact that these are people we know and love and are part of our families. That’s the most important point right now.”

That the subject of teaching on same – sex relationships is an “ongoing dicussion” will be no surprise to regular readers of QTC, or to anyone who has been paying attention to serious church news. It has been discussed extensively by gay and lesbian theologians, and then by queer theologians, for upwards of thirty years. Mainstream professional theologians recognized that it is in dire need of revision, and in some countries are actively working to achieve that change.  Empirical research shows that 0rdinary Catholics, gay or straight, no longer see the issue as having anything to do with morality, and more and more bishops are begining to speak about at the very least, an impovement in pastoral practice.

What is striking here, is not that the subject is being discussed – but that that even Cardinal George, so often seen as the bane of queer Catholics and an opponent of homosexual inclusion, is not recognizing the apology. Let us give thanks, In the words of   Chris Pett, president of Dignity Chicago,

“This is not about power. This is not about control. This is about a church and its ministry and its shepherd,” he said. “We believe in reconciliation. It’s not a time to continue to draw battle lines and go back to prior history. It’s time to say we’re grateful for that gift for someone realizing that he or she misspoke in a way that caused some harm and seek forgiveness.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
  • http://profiles.google.com/felidista Jennifer Hynes

    I think the Cardinal has matured, and probably now sees things differently. His revelation about having gay family members is vitally important in seeing how he has come to a decision that he now understand his comments were hurtful. I really think he may have changed somewhat during the awful business.

    • Jim McCrea

      I have a bridge across the Golden Gate that I can get you a good price on.  Are you interested?

      • Advocatus Diaboli

        what does that mean?

        • http://queeringthechurch.com/ Terence Weldon

          What he means, AD, is that he is sceptical about the idea that Cardinal George has had a real change of heart. He is suggesting that people who believe that are gullible, and would be willing to pay money to someone who offered to sell them the Golden Gate bridge.

  • Mario

    I have heard a lot of apologies in my time by various leaders. Most have seemed forced and the words not quite right. This one… is different. One thought that goes through my mind is: did they get a queer to write it? Nonetheless, it is monumental. It is also successful; most of us will leave him alone now. I pray this is a positive omen of change. I struggle… I want to be excited and yet do not want to let my guard down. If this apology is real, he had to come a long way to get there.

    +Mario

    • http://queeringthechurch.com/ Terence Weldon

      I agree, Mario. It reads with conviction, and seems to hold out some promise for the future. This has changed the landscape somewhat.

      • Advocatus Diaboli

        I agree with both of you.

    • Jim McCrea

      Ah, but did he apologize because he was beaten up in many venues, or did he apologize because he acutally has seen the error of his ways?  Yeah, right.

      • Mario

        I think I will go with my father’s wisdom here: plan for the worst and hope for the best!

  • Peter Santos

    The Cardinal’s apology is nothing more than cowardice posing as “tolerance.”  And refuted here: http://lasalettejourney.blogspot.com

    • http://queeringthechurch.com/ Terence Weldon

      If it is “refuted” by the deranged reasoning at La Salette, then…..

      I take that as a ringing endorsement.

    • You Are Decieved

      I refute you and La Salette Jounrney blog HERE   http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/

  • Mario

    Do you live in the US? It is the United States of America not the united states of you or Christians. We have the right to be treated equally regardless of our lifestyle. We ask for the same rights African Americans have asked for, women have asked for and all the cultures who have been descriminated against in the USA.

    In every movement including the Christian one, there are those who act radically a part from the rest of the group. Christians killing abortion doctors, bombings… Our movement is no different. It has human beings in it.

    I read your blog and you are sad and hateful. And your rant is a diversion so you do not have to deal with your lack of Christ in your heart. Hey, he hung around with us. We were his chosen social circle. Something Christians choose to forget.

    +Mario

    • Mario

      This was a rely to Santos…

  • http://www.wildhair95.blogspot.com wild hair

    Has anyone thought to inform Archbishop Nienstedt that there is an “ongoing discussion” about same sex relationships in the Catholic Church? The archbishop might want to reconsider his recent gag order on the priests and deacons in the archdiocese from speaking in opposition to his position concerning the upcoming vote to amend the Minnesota State Constittuion defining marriage as between one woman and one man. Is the archbishop afraid of the discussion? 

    • http://queeringthechurch.com/ Terence Weldon

      Interesting suggestion for Nienstedt – but I suspect that this “ongoing discussion” is more widespread among the bishops than is publicly disclosed. 

      A few months ago, in conversation with James Alison, I spoke about a particular priest who was preparing to come out to his bishop (in a very conservative diocese). James, who has personal knowledge of a great many dioceses all over the world, replied that that bishop “had been on a steep learning curve”. 

      So have many others – notably Cardinal George. I think there are very many more, that we just don’t know about. 

  • Advocatus Diaboli

    I am VERY excited by this apology, just because I felt that the response was disproportional and counterproductive does not mean that I felt that he should apologize. However, maybe such a response was just what was necessary to get such a constructive comment. God works in mysterious ways.  I fully and STRONGLY support each and every point in this post. Each and Every Point.

    … I just hope that this does not result in a negative reaction from Rome and the Grand Inquisitor – oops, that was his old job as head of the CDF; I meant to say Pope Benedict XVI ;-)

    • Advocatus Diaboli

      crap… i intended to say “…just because I felt that the response was disproportional and counterproductive does NOT mean that I felt that he should NOT apologize” (as in, I felt that he SHOULD apologize). Terence, if you are able to edit that for me, please do.

  • Anonymous

    Interesting developments indeed. It would be reasonable to suppose that the Cardinal’s own queer relatives took him to task over his remarks and possibly even helped him with the apology. What does it matter if his motives were mixed, we all move along the path of virtue with stumbling steps, tentative, uncertain, hesitant, conflicted. This is a major step forward and should be welcomed as such.

  • Youaredecieved

    Apparently, or so I heard, the Cardinal has a gay nephew.  Also, I thought that you might find this fun.http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/213653/Gay+black+jewish+spongebob+ku+klux+klan/

    • http://queeringthechurch.com/ Terence Weldon

      I don’t know about a nephew specifically, but it’s no secret that he has lgbt relatives, he said so himself. (So do most people, whether they know it or not). 

      I have removed your link, which is offensive and in very poor taste.

      • You Are Decieved

        Um…. you found a picture that was created with the intent to subvert and make fun of the KKK offensive enough to remove, but you don’t remove stupid and hateful remarks by La Salette people? That ‘offensive’ picture is of a group of young gay African-Americans who live in Smyrna, Georgia (Georgia is the center of the REAL KKK); they used to meet on wednesdays at 7:30 in their friend’s mom’s basement. They took a local cultural thing and inverted it to support their cause, they are trying to subvert the hate of the KKK with support of diversity and pro-lgbt messages. Gays do this everywhere in america; those Sisters of perpetual indulgence that advocatus diaboli mentioned in a comment on his post are no different; only I disagree with him, he thinks they are mocking nuns, I think they are just a trans expression of nuns (inverting the trappings and terminology of traditional rigid and repressed religious orders into open and fun pro-gay activists).   But if you still find the picture of pro-gay activists challenging the KKK to be in ‘very poor taste’, then ok. JUst to be clear, there is no ill will here, just a bit taken aback that you found it to be worse than anything La Salette has to say. Btw, the link is still active, you should probably just delete the whole comment to achieve the desired effect. 

        • http://queeringthechurch.com Terence Weldon

          I’ve taken another look at the link, and disagree with your assertion that this was intended to make fun of Klansmen specifically. The “humour” is equally directed at gays, Jews, and Blacks. (There is no reason to assume that they are African-Americans, just because the placard says so, any more than we should assume that they are Jewish, or gay, or Klansmen). But that’s not the point. I apply completely different standards to comments, and to links. (Any number of sites will not accept links, at all). Links are useful if they contribute directly to the discussion – otherwise not. I apply looser standards to comments, because they are at least a direct response to the post content, and so I tolerate them, even if when offensive to me.

          I repeat that it has not been my practice to delete comments in the past – but that may change. The comments threads here have become much more lively in recent weeks, which I welcome. For myself, I have a thick skin and can cope with a certain amount of venom and animus, but I do need to protect my readers and contributors. I can see I will have to prepare and publish a clear statement of guidelines, indicating what I will tolerate, and what not.

          I am pleased to note your assurance that “there is no ill will here”, and I offer the same assurance to you. My reference to a likely tighter policy on comments should not be read as a veiled threat to you – or to any one else in particular.

        • http://queeringthechurch.com Terence Weldon

          I must apologize sincerely for the curtness of my earlier replies. I stand by what I wrote, but the tone was uncalled for. The problem arose because I’ve been under some pressure the last week, and with the surge of activity in the comments threads I’ve been rather rushing the moderation. I confused your moniker with somebody else, one of those who was specifically and explicitly hostile a fortnight ago.

          I’ve been taking another look at those nasties and crazies, and now realize how very mistaken I was. I apologize, unreservedly – and thank you for your contributions.

Switch to our mobile site