Excerpt from
Sexual Diversity and Catholicism
Toward the Development of Moral Theology
by Patricia Beattie Jung with Joseph A. Coray, Editor
© The Order of St. Benedict, Inc., Collegeville, Minnesota. All rights reserved. No part of this may be reproduced by any means, without the written permission of The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota 56321.

Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction
    Patricia Beattie Jung

Part One: Interpreting Church Teachings
    1. A Call to Listen: The Church's Pastoral and Theological Response to Gays and Lesbians
         Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton

    2. Unitive and Procreative Meaning: The Inseparable Link
         James P. Hanigan

    3. The Bridegroom and the Bride: The Theological Anthropology of John Paul II and Its Relation to the Bible and Homosexuality
        Susan A. Ross

    4. The Church and Homosexuality: A Lonerganian Approach
        Jon Nilson

Part Two: Interpreting the Bible
    5. The Promise of Postmodern Hermeneutics for the Biblical Renewal of Moral Theology
         Patricia Beattie Jung

    6. Questions about the Construction of (Homo)sexuality: Same-Sex Relations in the Hebrew Bible
        Robert A. Di Vito

    7. Romans 1:26-27: The Claim that Homosexuality Is Unnatural
         Leland J. White

    8. The New Testament and Homosexuality?
        Bruce J. Malina

    9. Perfect Fear Casteth Out Love: Reading, Citing, and Rape
        Mary Rose D'Angelo

Part Three: Interpreting Secular Disciplines
    10. Homosexuality, Moral Theology, and Scientific Evidence
         Sidney Callahan

    11. Informing the Debate on Homosexuality: The Behavioral Sciences and the Church
        Isiaah Crawford and Brian D. Zamboni

    12. Harming by Exclusion: On the Standard Concepts of Sexual Orientation, Sex and Gender
        David T. Ozar

Part Four: Interpreting Human Experience
    13. Papal Ideals, Marital Realities: One View from the Ground
        Cristina L. H. Traina

    14. Catholic Lesbian Feminist Theology
        Mary E. Hunt

Contributors
Index
Index of Ecclesial Documents

Introduction
Patricia Beattie Jung
It is simply a matter of fact that in the United States we discriminate as a matter of public policy on the basis of sexual identity. We give preferential treatment in a variety of ways to heterosexual people and treat gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people (hereafter GLBT) prejudicially in regard to jobs, housing, credit, and public accommodations. Though this discrimination is often accompanied by, and is certainly reinforced by homophobia, fear, and hatred are not always the driving force behind these policies. Sometimes what undergirds them is the heterocentric conviction that there is something wrong with—that is, either imperfect, defective, diseased, or downright evil about—homosexual desires and activities. Because people are divided in their basic moral evaluation of homosexuality in particular, and about sexual diversity in general, they are divided about how to respond to the differential treatment based on sexual identity inherent in many of our public policies.

Through its official teachings on homosexuality, the Roman Catholic Church sends "mixed" signals in regard to such heterosexist policies. On the one hand, the Church has repeatedly and unambiguously condemned the verbal abuse of and violent attacks against GLBT people. In 1986 the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (hereafter CDF) noted in its Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (hereafter PCHP) that "it is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech and in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs." Reiterating the point for the United States Catholic Conference (hereafter USCC), Bishops Charron and Skylstad argued in 1996 that "gay people deserve respect, compassion, understanding and defense against bigotry, attacks and abuse."

Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church has clearly taught that at least some types of discrimination based on sexual orientation should be dismantled. In 1976 the bishops of the USCC taught that gay people "like everyone else should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights. They have a right to respect, friendship and justice. They should have an active role in the Christian community." More recently, this same regional teaching body called "on all Christians and citizens of good will to confront their own fears about homosexuality and to curb the humor and discrimination that offend homosexual persons.... First and foremost, we support modeling and teaching respect for every human person, regardless of sexual orientation." "The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law" the Vatican has long proclaimed. This was reiterated by the CDF in its 1992 letter to the bishops Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons (hereafter SCC), and then again two years later in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which declares "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided."

On the other hand, because the Roman Catholic Church clearly advocates a heterocentric sexual ideal, it endorses some forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation. This should come as no surprise. These mixed messages do not come from an "incoherent" or "confused" teaching but from carefully nuanced distinctions informing a quite consistent teaching. And while there is much room for debate, even among conservative Catholics, about how this heterocentric ideal might best be applied in our particular cultural context, it is important to recognize that this normative framework establishes at least the possibility that some heterosexist policies might be deemed not only just but morally required. Thus, when the Vatican issued the PCHP in order to combat what it perceived as a growing confusion about its teachings about homosexuality and related issues, the Church reiterated its traditional position that "no one has any conceivable right" to homosexual behavior. It further specified that efforts associated with what it labeled the "pro-homosexual" movement to dismantle some expressions of heterosexism "threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people" and "puts in jeopardy" the family. Therefore, the CDF concluded that all Church-related institutions should withdraw support from organizations "which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it or which neglect it entirely."

Though generally considered less authoritative in status, the Vatican's SCC declares that discrimination based on sexual orientation is "not only just but morally required" in several arenas: specifically noted were policies regarding the placement of children for adoption and foster care, the employment of teachers and athletic coaches, military recruitment, and even housing (especially when the rights of GLBT people are compared to the needs of "genuine" families). Landlords are described as expressing a legitimate concern when they screen potential tenants on the basis of sexual orientation. Why? Because the Vatican presumes GLBT people (like those with contagious diseases, it is suggested) pose a real threat to the common good. Specifically, the Church teaches they recruit youth and attack the institution of (heterosexual) marriage and family.

Again, while some of these specific applications of official Church teaching on homosexuality were not well received by some Catholics in the United States, many believe at least some forms of heterosexist discrimination are not only justified, but morally required. Many U.S. Catholics believe, for example, that our present marriage laws are a paradigmatic example of a "legitimate" instance of "just" discrimination or differential treatment based on sexual orientation; by pooling their discretionary funds the bishops of several Roman Catholic dioceses in California became the largest single donor in support of the Knight Initiative (which would ban same-sex marriages in California.) The many benefits and protections associated with marriage make it clear that much is at stake in the contemporary debate about the civil licensing same-sex marriage.

These Catholics are not alone in their judgment. Christians across many denominations see the effort to dismantle our present marriage laws as misguided at best, and at worst, as a dangerous moral outrage. Many denominations teach officially that this particular discriminatory practice is just, indeed necessary, to protect the public good. Bishops Charron and Skylstad spoke not only for the USCC, but for many others, when they concluded that "no same-sex union can realize the unique and full potential [for mutual love and support, for the reproduction and education of children, for the imaging of God's love for people] which the marital relationship expresses."

Arguments for the proscription of same-sex marriage rest in part on the claim that heterosexuality is more than simply part of God's good creation. Rather, it is the only moral, or at least the morally ideal, form of human sexuality; in the terms of official Catholic teaching, arguments against same-sex marriage hinge on the conviction that a homosexual "inclination" or "tendency" is "objectively disordered." This is so, according to Roman Catholic Church teaching because authentic love-making is only possible under two interrelated conditions. Sexual partners can only truly make love when they (1) are open to the possibility of procreation and (2) are expressing that sort of self-giving presumed possible only between persons whose genders are complementary.

Does Heterosexism Have a Biblical Foundation?
It can be easily established that these two tenets had been thought to rest upon a descriptive account of human sexuality as "naturally" structured around procreativity and male-female complementarity. Yet, as Stephen J. Pope notes these teachings are no longer based on "a rationally developed philosophical analysis nor a scientifically informed account of human nature but a direct and straightforward appeal to biblical revelation." Hence he argues that contemporary expressions of this traditional Church teaching are most aptly categorized as representative of a form of "revealed" natural law, resting decisively as they do on certain traditional interpretations of biblical texts judged by the official magisterium to be key to this question. The significant, if not decisive, role of biblical interpretation in its present teachings is noted by the Church itself. These moral convictions, the Church has argued, are based "on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony."

Whether the biblical texts frequently cited in official Church teachings can be reasonably interpreted to support this heterocentric sexual ideal, and consequently at least some heterosexist practices, is one of the questions explored in this volume. Indeed, this was the question that led originally to this interdisciplinary study. Thus some of the essays collected here explore the relationship between contemporary biblical scholarship and Roman Catholic magisterial teachings about the morality of homosexuality. The biblical renewal of moral theology encouraged by the Second Vatican Council invites all teachers of the Church to ask: can contemporary biblical scholarship confirm that the Bible "reveals" what has officially been taught in this regard—specifically that human sexuality is so designed as to be structured exclusively around procreativity and male-female complementarity, and therefore, that homosexual activity is immoral? Are magisterial interpretations of key biblical texts regarding human sexuality corroborated by reasonable biblical exegesis?

Moral Discernment of the Living Tradition
Obviously, however, what counts as the criteria for reasonable biblical interpretations is significant. It has always been the Roman Catholic position that the discernment of the living Tradition is rooted in the consilience of insights not only from traditional sources (such as Sacred Scriptures and Church teachings), but also from secular disciplines and human experience. Truth is such that it is logical to expect reasonable biblical interpretations to cohere not only with cogent Church teachings but also with the wisdom emerging from sound scientific studies, well-constructed philosophical analyses and properly interpreted human experiences. Each source of moral wisdom—traditional Church teachings and practices, the Bible, the data secular disciplines, and human experience—requires interpretation.

Such interpretation is best done dialogically; through such interplay these sources are allowed to mutually correct as well as corrobate each other. Thus for biblical scholarship to contribute to the renewal of moral theology, exegetes must enter into conversation not only with theologians but scientists, philosophers, and pastors. Thus it was that most of those who contributed essays to this volume met at Loyola at the Cenacle in Chicago in October 1999. During that working symposium, the contributors struggled faithfully in small interdisciplinary groups to allow their own reflections on human sexual diversity to be informed by the insights and wisdom emerging in other fields. While working primarily out of their respective disciplines, the authors listened to each other and worked together toward moral discernment. Following that symposium, they each revised their essays in an effort to contribute with more discernment to the development of Catholic teaching on sexual diversity.

That such moral discernment is a Protestant as well as Catholic agenda goes without saying. Yet, how precisely the insights of experience, secular disciplines, and the Scriptures relate to traditional Church teachings, and to the teaching office of the Church, is part of what has historically divided Roman Catholics and Protestants. And it raises additional methodological questions. Complicating the scholarly pursuit of the question of whether insights from these various sources of wisdom cohere with and undergird traditional heterocentric Church teachings (or not) are debates among Catholics about the proper understanding of the relationship among these sources of wisdom. Consider, for example, the relationship in principle between the Bible and magisterial teachings on specific moral matters. Can the biblical renewal of moral theology result not only in the reinforcement, but at least on occasion, in the further development, indeed even the reform, of traditional Church teachings?

Magisterial Teachings and Insights from the Bible, Secular Disciplines, and Human Experience
Fidelity to authoritative teachings on highly complex moral matters generally requires that these teachings be engaged by theologians (constructive and moral), biblical scholars, scientists, philosophers, and pastors in a variety of ways. For example, it requires that arguments in their defense be both sympathetically constructed and critically evaluated. The potential applicability of these teachings to the contemporary situation needs to be both appreciated and tested. In regard to teachings about homosexuality and heterosexism, an exploration of the exegetical and hermeneutical arguments foundational to magisterial teachings is obviously part of their faithful appropriation.

While engaged in this work, moral theologians ought neither absolutize nor overlook magisterial interpretations of the Sacred Scriptures. It is reasonable to expect Church teachings, received with the presumption of truth, to be readily corroborated by the best of biblical scholarship and to cohere with cogent interpretations of relevant human experiences and with the best scientific data and philosophical arguments available. Thus the genuine appreciation of official Church interpretations of the Bible is not antithetical to their critical analysis. The theological reception of authoritative Church teachings is not properly conceived of as separable from the exposure of these same teachings to rigorous scholarly analysis and debate. Vigorous suspicion can be an expression of the faithful appreciation of tradition. The dichotomization of these two hermeneutical approaches is false.

Many in the academy, however, continue to assume that a commitment to wrestle faithfully with Church teachings will prove inescapably parochial. Such tenacity reflects, they most likely presume, a blind and immature submission of inquiry to an excessively authoritarian voice. Certainly, if one were to ascribe a preemptive form of authority to Church teachings on specific moral matters, that would be the case. Whenever one grants primacy a priori to a source of wisdom (whether that be official Church teachings or contemporary secular viewpoints) over all others, then one rules radical disagreements "out of order," and eclipses even the possibility of mutual correction and learning.

The Church recognizes of course that there is a debate, confusing for many of the faithful, about how best to interpret the witness of scripture on the subjects of same-sex behavior, homosexuality, and heterosexism. Indeed, according to the official magisterium those exegetes who argue "that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all its moral injunctions are so culture-bound that they are no longer applicable" are "gravely erroneous." However since the guidance of the Holy Spirit has never been understood to be restricted to the official magisterium, the discernment of the living Tradition by the teaching Church remains in principle open to developments triggered by insights stemming from other sources of moral wisdom. The Catholic tradition remains in principle open to developments in moral theology triggered by the skills, expertise, disciplines, and insights stemming from many—some not even explicitly Christian—sources of moral wisdom.

Teaching Authority
The promise of biblical renewal for moral theology is not easy to characterize, but it most certainly holds some rather surprising ecclesiological implications for Christian communities, Protestant and Catholic alike. Since as far back as the sixteenth-century exegetes have recognized the practice of "private" exegesis to be very dangerous. Taking biblical texts seriously as sources of moral wisdom requires that their interpretation be done in conversation with Christian traditions in communion with the church. In 1993 Stanley Hauerwas, arguably the most well-known Protestant ethicist in the country, shocked many of his Protestant readers when he argued that "most Christians assume that they have a right, if not a pious obligation, to read the Bible. I challenge that assumption. No task is more important than for the church to take the Bible out of the hands of individual Christians in North America." This was shocking because to conclude that biblical interpretation should take place only when "controlled" by the Church simply goes against the piety of much of American Protestantism.

As the title of his book Unleashing the Scriptures indicated, Hauerwas was driven to this conclusion by the conviction that the Bible is being held captive by North American political interests and prejudices. Few would deny the merits of his concern. Some scholars call the ideological corruption of Christian teaching and preaching by the biases of any given culture "eisegesis." It is always a real and present danger. It is surely the concern that lay behind the Vatican's desire to clarify its teaching on homosexuality in 1986. It has long been understood that the primary problem in the use of Scripture in moral arguments is that of control. Thus resolving questions about the control of the interpretative process will prove central to the biblical renewal of moral theology.

The Bible as Scripture
It has become commonplace to note that people are narratively constructed. We live out of many different scripts. The messages that bombard us from all quarters get organized more or less by the master story in accord with which we live. When the Bible is faithfully appropriated, it functions precisely as such an identity-conferring, master story. When we are authored by it, it becomes our Scripture.

Many Christians recognize that to embody the Bible can not mean trying to replicate even one of the bygone eras represented in the canon. Taking the Bible seriously is not nostalgia for "the good old days." Indeed, if the Bible is to function as Scripture for us, fidelity to its witness can not mean the repristination of its ancient worlds. Fidelity to the Bible requires its translation into our world. To be so scripted by the Bible can not be a matter of simply adopting New Testament practices, any more than the imitation of Christ requires that we all become itinerant preachers. No Christian today abstains from eating meat that has been strangled or refrains from eating blood sausage, even though these activities are quite clearly proscribed in the New Testament (Acts 15:20). Christians some time ago interpreted that recommendation to be no longer applicable. Furthermore, anyone who digs deeply into the Bible can not help but be struck by the diversity of practices—regarding personal wealth, for example—commended within the New Testament alone. The nature of the Bible itself necessitates its interpretation.

Whenever we claim the Bible as Scripture—as an authoritative source of moral wisdom for us—we are immediately and inevitably confronted by two questions. What controls our selection of texts? and what controls the interpretation of the texts we have selected? Hauerwas proposes, in a move more typically Roman Catholic than Protestant, that traditional Church teachings should be in control.

The Moral Ambiguity of Some Church Teachings
Protestant and Roman Catholic Christians divided (in part at any rate) precisely over this question about "the control" of the Bible. Thus many, Protestants especially, believe Hauerwas to be suggesting that they jump "from the frying pan into the fire," when he concluded that Christians should place their interpretations "under the authority" of the Church. This may free the Bible from some of the distortions associated with the secularism rampant in the U.S., but they argue, the Bible can be—indeed has been on occasion—held captive, not only by the civil ideologies that worry Hauerwas, but also by errors (sometimes long-standing) on the part of the Church.

Church history displays the ambiguity of some of the Church's moral teachings and raises real questions about the trustworthiness of Christian traditions as interpretive frameworks. Few would contest the claim that the moral teachings of Christianity have changed over the centuries. But there is vigorous debate (especially among Roman Catholics) about both (1) how to describe and (2) how to evaluate these changes. Without doubt, some changes in Church teachings are merely adjustments necessitated by changes in the moral situations faced by the faithful. But others of these seem to represent more substantive developments, prompted by what John Henry Newman called in his classic "An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine," a "warfare of ideas." This has resulted in much needed corrections in the Church's moral teachings.

Another question key to the biblical renewal of moral theology is therefore: on what basis should we evaluate developments in and challenges to traditional Church teachings? This is relatively easy to do in retrospect. Hindsight always seems to make moral discernment easier. But of course, what we really need help with is assessing changes while they are being proposed. On what basis should we decide whether a proposed "development" represents a salutary renewal of, or the corruption of, the Church's teachings on a particular issue?

Initially (at any rate) the answer to this question seems clear enough: base one's assessment of the proposed development on whether or not it is biblically inspired, corroborated or at least not contraindicated! The Bible is for Christians a necessary and indispensable source of moral wisdom. Any proposed change in traditional Church teaching should in some, at least minimal, sense cohere with the witness preserved in the Bible. There is even broad ecumenical agreement about the significance for Christians of moral arguments based on the Scriptures. And yet, while all this is true, it leads us right back to the problem with which we started.

Reviewing the Hermeneutical Circle
When confronted with questions about the basis on which we ought to highlight and interpret biblical texts, we reiterate the ancient conviction that Church teachings are better than secular ideologies as guiding frameworks for biblical interpretation. Yet, while better overall, at least some of the Church's traditional teachings may need dramatic "development." The fact that some Church teachings are corroborated by the scriptural interpretations they frame, while others are contradicted by commonplace accounts of biblical testimony, does not in itself solve the problem with which we wrestle. A cursory review of the history of moral theology discloses that in both cases—either of corroboration or contradiction—one has no guarantee of having thereby discerned the living Tradition.

This gives rise to at least two important questions: first, should Church teachings, or some other sources of moral wisdom, be in control of the interpretative process? and second, given the promise of Christ that at least some Church teachings will be developed further, how do we determine which ones? Clearly, even when the Christian scriptures and traditions are bound together in a hermeneutical partnership, not all our ethical questions are answered. Yet there is no better alternative to this circular relationship. Clearly, leashing the scriptures to secular ideologies would offer no more helpful interpretative framework. Furthermore, though potentially vicious, the hermeneutical circle between the Bible and Church teachings is most often illuminative.

The Church as a Deliberative Community for Biblical Interpretation and Moral Discernment
Taking the Bible seriously requires that Christians hold themselves accountable to an inclusive dialogue about the moral meaning of both the Bible and traditional Church teachings. Such work by definition is communal. Happily, it is to the Church as a whole that God has entrusted the Word and promised the Spirit. To argue that the Church is the proper context in which to read the Scripture does not entail a triumphalist ecclesiology. No one knows where the Spirit might blow. Yet, Christians ought to trust in the promised Presence of the Spirit in the Church. This does not eliminate the possibility of individual insight into Scripture, or guarantee that official magisterial teachings will never be mistaken. To claim that the Church as a whole is the bearer of Scripture and tradition means that all the faithful—not just bishops, ministers, or theologians, with their advanced theological educations—have the privilege of and call to wrestle with the Word of God. The questions and insights all people bring to text studies and moral deliberation out of their diverse contexts in the world contributes greatly to the illumination of the Word and moral discernment. The contributions of secualr disciplines and the full range of human experience to the biblical renewal of moral theology are not just welcome but essential.

This of course is not anything like an endorsement of private interpretation. While the Bible is a resource for and open to all the faithful, the Church is the context within which to interpret the Bible according to Catholic teaching. When we practice "reading in communion" with one another, our sense of a text's meaning for the moral life is expanded by the diverse views we engage. Our interpretation is sometimes corroborated, other times corrected, often enriched. This is especially true if these "others" with whom we are reading are in some sense outsiders to our perspective. The biblical renewal of moral theology requires that the hermeneutical and discernment process be communal, inclusive of all the faithful and cross-disciplinary.

Discerning the Living Tradition
While the ecclesial structures for authenticating Church teachings are not everywhere the same, every Christian denomination must reckon with how theological disagreement contributes to the interrelated processes of interpreting various sources of moral wisdom and the discernment of the living Tradition. If there is to be an authentic renewal of moral theology, then all Christian denominations must be open to and prepared for not only vigorous deliberation about how best to interpret the scriptures, the conclusions of secular disciplines, and human experience, but also for disagreements with official denominational statements about those same deliberations. Some lay people, pastoral ministers, congregations, other church-related institutions—as well as theologians—disagree with the traditional Christian endorsement of certain forms of heterosexism. When a "warfare of ideas" (to use the terms suggested by John Henry Newman ) has been spawned by the interplay between theological, biblical, scientific, philosophical, pastoral and experiential sources of moral insight—as this anthology makes clear is the case in regard to the ethical analysis of sexual diversity within Catholicism—then the integration of theological disagreement into our operative ecclesiology is part of the challenge of learning to be a community of moral deliberation as well as moral conviction.

The very possibility of an outcome such as this tempts some within the Church to shut down the kind of theological dialogue represented in this volume. For them loyalty to the Church mandates humble submission and silent obedience. In contrast many contributors to this volume believe on occasion that responsible disagreement alone can express the fidelity and respect the living Tradition warrants.

A Responsible Public Conversation
According to the late moral theologian Richard A. McCormick, traditional moral doctrines are authoritative in the sense that they enjoy the presumption of truth. This means those who would disagree carry the burden of proof. However, this presumption of truth remains simply that—a presumption. The credibility of official Church teachings on specific moral matters may be tested in terms of a variety of criteria: their coherence, elegance, comprehensiveness, etc. For example, the presumption of truth such teachings enjoy may eventually be judged strong or weak, depending upon the extent and the degree to which all sources of moral wisdom relevant to particular issues have been explored in their formation. Whenever the hierarchical magisterium fails to adequately gather and assess all the moral wisdom available to it, the presumption in favor of its teachings is weakened. In such a case, faithfulness to the living Tradition may take the form of disagreement with a particular magisterial teaching. In this way neglected insights might be highlighted.

The theological discussions that ensue might yield progress, but such a result is not inevitable. Clearly theological debate can be conducted in ways that prove to be irresponsible. In its 1968 pastoral letter, "Human Life in Our Day," the U.S. bishops outlined three norms that ought to govern theological dissent. First, the reasons for it must be serious and well-founded. Second, the manner in which the criticism is developed must be such that it fosters respect for the teaching authority of the hierarchical magisterium in general. Third, it ought not give scandal.

Since not even the most conservative Catholic would deny that theological debate is legitimate under some circumstances, the important question is when (if ever) should such disagreements be made public? In their 1968 pastoral letter the U.S. bishops called for a fruitful dialogue among bishops and theologians about precisely this issue. In its 1990 Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, the CDF gave its views on the matter. The Vatican invites bishops and theologians into private conversations and encourages the exchange of personal correspondence on matters about which moral theologians argue. The Vatican acknowledges that the tradition will be strengthened by this testing. Through this "warfare of ideas," the Church will be better able to articulate the faith. In the long run, such a dialogue will serve the search for moral truth within the Church.

And yet the Instruction clearly warns against some forms of public theological dissent, especially those involving the "popular" press and mass media "campaigns." Explicitly unaddressed is the expression of theological disagreements in semi-public arenas, such as professional societies, scholarly conferences, academic journals, university-level lectures, and scholarly book series, like the one in which this volume is a part. Since it is precisely such theological writings which have been the primary focus of recent investigations of the CDF, it would not be paranoid to conclude that the expression of theological debate even in such venues is implicitly forbidden. Indeed, this much is about the thrust of the Instruction is clear: the Vatican would prefer theological debate in the Church to be conducted sotto voce, that is, in a "low voice" not intended to be overheard. Theological disagreements need not always be silenced, just muffled.

New theological views should be developed with care—and in venues like scholarly presses which welcome the nuance that often accompanies such care. Furthermore, these lines of argument should be spoken "out loud," even though the ensuing moral deliberation may prove confusing, divisive and costly to some in the Church. Only through public expression can these very ideas be critically tested. And such testing is part of the way that God's Word is authentically proclaimed; it is an expression of fidelity to the living Tradition, when expressions of it, both new and old, are scrutinized.

Ultimately, however, moral deliberation must be conducted "out loud" because the very credibility of the Church's teachings depends in part upon their comprehensiveness. Their comprehensiveness in turn depends upon their formation in light of the full spectrum of sources of moral wisdom. Public deliberation facilitates the interplay of all the sources of moral wisdom promised to us, and increases the magisterium's accessibility to them.

It is well known that many fertile Catholic spouses in North America practice artificial contraception. Many moral theologians believe that both developments in the scientific understanding of human sexuality and reproduction and the sexual, marital and parental experience of faithful lay people have not been adequately considered in the formation of official Church teaching regarding contraception. Hence, many moral theologians in the U.S. publicly disagree with some of the conclusions of Humanae vitae. From this perspective, the suppression of the public exploration of the full implications for sexual ethics of such scientific discoveries and experiences eliminates possible sources not only of confusion and error but also of theological correction and improvement as well. The proper interpretation of such data and experience should play an important role in the development of moral theology, along with the retrieval of traditional Church teachings and the proper interpretation of the biblical witness.

When the disciplinary and experiential expertise of all God's people is not included in the process of theological and moral discernment, then the Church can not readily access the insights which might emerge from the work of the Spirit in the world, that is, in their lived experience of the faith and their "secular" disciplines and insights. Present discussions about the role of debate in the development of moral theology is not just about the role and responsibilities of bishops, priests, and theologians but also about the role and responsibilities of those with more secular vocations.

Furthermore, it is not coincidental that the flash points for this controversy are primarily issues in sexual ethics. Ethical problems concerning sexuality are issues with which most faithful lay people have considerable first hand experience and to which they have given much prayer and thought. Some remain afraid that the laity will overhear, and subsequently be scandalized by, the discussions collected in this volume about what the Tradition, Bible, secular disciplines, and selected experiences of the faithful might have to say about sexual diversity because most of the views expressed "out loud" here respectfully question official Church teaching. What this discussion about theological debate is ultimately about is the role of the laity in the Church, especially given the growing interest among faithful lay people about matters theological and moral.

Many concur that public theological disagreements in regard to some noninfallible Church teachings run the risk of fostering confusion among some Catholic lay people. As George B. Wilson notes, the magisterium is rightly concerned to protect the faithful from the heresy and sin associated with ill-formed consciences. And as Noonan notes, changes are not necessarily for the better; "the majority of mutations are harmful." Yet while the Church as a whole can not err in matters central to the faith, the premise, operative among many conservatives, that God could not allow the faithful to be led astray by false teachings for any length of time on noninfallible teachings is equally dangerous.

Bishops and theologians alike make prudential judgments about whether the risks which may be realistically associated with scholarly investigations such as this outweigh their potential contributions to the further development of moral theology and their educational benefits. They must consider in their calculus the dangers and costs associated with the stifling all forms of public theological debate. In the United States most Catholic lay people, and certainly the secular world to which the Church is also called to bear witness, are confused and disturbed, indeed scandalized, by the sounds of enforced silence. The credibility of Church teachings is most surely eroded, when scholarly arguments that foster honest inquiry into and respectful debate about them are not tolerated. All who gather together, with the authors who contributed to this volume, to "converse" about Sexual Diversity and Catholicism could do no better than to follow the instructions of St. Paul: "test everything and hold fast to what is good" (1 Thess 5:21).

Part One: Interpreting Church Teachings
1
A Call to Listen: The Church's Pastoral and Theological Response to Gays and Lesbians
Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton
Throughout many years of pastoral experience, I have come to a deeper understanding of what is meant by the words recorded by Matthew as the conclusion of the Sermon on the Mount: "You must be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect" (Matt 5:48).

This is not a call to what is impossible. We are not expected to become "God." But just as God is fully and completely God in the fullness of what it means to be God, so each of us is called by God to be fully and completely the human person God has made us to be. Jesus is the model for us, not in his divinity, but in his humanity. Certainly Jesus came to reveal God to us. But he also came to reveal us to ourselves. Not only is he truly God, he is also truly human. By his presence among us, fully human, like us in every way except sin, Jesus shows us how the glory of God is revealed in us when we become fully alive, fully the human person we are called to be. Because Jesus was without sin, he was fully human, fully alive. Sin is the rejection of the truth of our humanity. Sin detracts from our fullness of life, from our being fully human. We are urged to become perfect, which means to be all God has made it possible for us to be.

Obviously, this does not happen at once. The original blessing of our creation has been diminished, sometimes to what seems an almost unredeemable degree, by sin. It takes a long process of being healed, of being loved into a new fullness of humanness, by the God who first loved us into existence, into life.

We have various sources of guidance to help us grow into full human persons as we live out our time on earth. God’s Word in the Old Testament and the New Testament, and especially in Jesus, is the first source for us to look to. The community of Jesus’ disciples and its tradition is a second source. In addition, we have the insights of other human persons who have prayerfully and consistently pondered God’s Word and who can share their insights in directing us. Finally, as the Second Vatican Council reminded us, we have the divine voice echoing in our own depth, within our own spirit as a law written by God in human hearts. This is the voice of individual conscience.

I intend this essay to be a way of showing that homosexual persons can be "perfect," just as heterosexual persons can be. They can be all God calls them to be as homosexual human beings, just as heterosexual persons can be fully human in their heterosexuality. There is extraordinary diversity in the ways that human creatures image God, in whose image and likeness they are created. I also intend to show that homosexual persons must struggle to reach as full a human development as possible by using the same resources of guidance God has given for all. As they do this, all of us must respect their honesty and integrity as they search for the way to their full humanness. At the outset I insist that they have the same right and obligation to use these sources of guidance that all of us have. And I am confident that the God who made them, and who knows them in the depths of their being, will bring them to an ever fuller sense of peace, love and life as they move along in their struggle to be fully human.

We who watch, and perhaps help to guide, will be moved to awe at the amazing, even infinite, diversity of the God who is imaged in every being loved into existence by this same God.

My awareness of the spiritual needs of homosexual persons and my ever deeper involvement in ministry to homosexual persons began in 1992. In March 1992 I was invited, along with two other bishops, to speak at a national meeting of New Ways Ministry. The three of us had been asked to serve as a panel of bishops offering a pastoral response to gay and lesbian persons in the Church.

Prior to the meeting, each of us was contacted directly or indirectly by the papal nuncio, who suggested that we ought to withdraw from the program. However, after talking it over with each other, we decided that our participation in the work of New Ways Ministry was an appropriate pastoral outreach to gay and lesbian people. I am very grateful that I went because it was a significant turning point in my own life. I thought very carefully about what I was going to say. In fact, I had two presentations prepared in my mind. I was thinking of a rather generic sort of presentation in which I would indicate how pleased I was to be there, how grateful I was for the invitation to speak, and how appropriate it seemed to me that bishops would engage in some fashion in this clearly identified ministry to the homosexual community within the Catholic Church. I would insist on the need for their full inclusion in the Church; on the need to eliminate all overt and subtle discrimination against homosexual people; how I as a bishop would be committed to this in my own personal attitude and actions; and how I would work for this in every way possible. I wanted to leave them with confidence that they would no longer have to hide their identity in order to be fully welcome in the Church, that a new era was opening up in the Church.

The other presentation would be much more personal. I would share my own "story" of confronting within myself a deep homophobia and working my way beyond it by having to deal with this pastoral problem, not in an academic or theoretical way, but within my own immediate family. Still debating within myself as I walked to the podium, and not sure if I was ready to do it, I said to myself, "I’m going to do it. I am going to tell my own story."

It is obviously very hard for gay and lesbian people to come out. First, there has to be a process of self-awareness, of coming to an understanding of their sexual identity. Then there is often a difficult struggle with self-acceptance. Very often, if not universally, homosexual people have been "programmed" into a deep self-hatred, and a sense that they cannot even be loved by God. This must be overcome, even to the point of rejoicing in who they are and fully accepting their homosexuality as the way God is calling them to be. Then after self-acceptance there is still the risk of being rejected by others, especially by the most significant people in their lives—parents, siblings, the Church, teachers, friends, etc. Today it is encouraging that so many are coming to accept themselves and risking all that goes with "coming out."

Though not totally comparable, nevertheless, it is also hard for those of us who are not gay or lesbian, but who have in some cases a child, or in my case a brother, who is homosexual to publicly acknowledge this. I was hesitant because I was not sure how publicly acknowledging and affirming my brother would affect my own ministry or the public esteem accorded to bishops and their role in the Church. Obviously, my concern reflected my own ignorance and even fear of homosexual persons. This is an attitude which is often generically described as homophobic. It is very much present in our Church and our society. Rejecting any fear of this consequence, I told them my "story," together with an account of what has happened subsequently.

I grew up in a very Catholic family. I am the sixth of ten children—eight boys and two girls. We grew up during the hard times of the Depression, through the Second World War, and after its aftermath when things got better economically. I went to parochial school and was very close to the Church. I followed the example of my parents who were very faithful Catholics. When I was just fourteen, I went to Sacred Heart Seminary to begin high school and continue for four years of college. After this, I spent four more years studying at St. John’s Seminary.

I took to the seminary life very much. I enjoyed it; I did well; and I was very much influenced by the kind of training I had there. As I look back now, I realize how unprepared I was after my ordination in 1956 to be a pastoral minister to gay or lesbian people. To tell you the truth, I never knew what a homosexual person was until I got into theology. I was never prepared to minister adequately. I can remember hearing confessions for hours at a time. The very large parish where I was stationed in the 1950s had a heavy schedule of confessions. Spending hours and hours in the confessional, I would periodically have men come who were gay, even though I didn’t know the term then. They would confess committing acts with other men. I remember how dogmatic I was and how decisive I was in telling them it was wrong and they would have to stop. My understanding was that it was a free choice, and just like any other sin, the sinner must try to do something about it. I thought I was giving good advice by telling them to separate themselves from the places where it happened. In reality, I had not even a minimum understanding of their situation. I never thought of it as sexual orientation. While I thought I was being very pastoral and helpful, I was actually being totally insensitive and, in many cases, very hurtful to people who came to me and to the Church for help. I was in no position to give it.

Much later I read an interview with Andrew Sullivan, a gay Catholic man, printed in America magazine in May 1993. It made me realize how inadequate and even hurtful my efforts were. A couple of paragraphs from the interview say it very well:
Natural law! Here is something [homosexuality] that seems to occur spontaneously in nature, in all societies and civilizations. Why not a teaching about the nature of homosexuality and what its good is. How can we be good? Teach us. How does one inform the moral lives of homosexuals? The church has an obligation to all its faithful to teach us how to live and how to be good—which is not merely dismissal, silence, embarrassment or a "unique" doctrine on one’s inherent disorder. Explain it. How does God make this? Why does it occur? What should we do? How can the doctrine of Christian love be applied to homosexual people as well?

Now it may be this search will turn up all sorts of options and possibilities. There may be all sorts of notions and debate about the nature of this phenomenon and what its final end might be. But that it has a final end is important. The church has to understand—people in the church have to understand—what it must be to grow up loving God and wanting to live one’s life well and truly, as a human being, able to love and contribute and believe, and yet having nothing.

I grew up with nothing. No one taught me anything except that this couldn’t be mentioned. And as a result of the total lack of teaching, gay Catholics and gay people in general are in crisis. No wonder people’s lives—many gay lives—are unhappy or distraught or in dysfunction, because there is no guidance at all. Here is a population within the church, and outside the church, desperately seeking spiritual health and values. And the church refuses to come to our aid, refuses to listen to this call.

I was so clearly a part of the Church which "refuses to come to our aid, refuses to listen to this call."

As I look back now, I can see why. In my own Catholic family, you just did what the Church said: follow the rules. And, while one would hope that in the seminary you would get some understanding about something like sexuality, this was not the case. In fact in these all-male institutions, the training intensified the homophobia with which I was raised. In fact, we used to get a spiritual conference with the spiritual director every week. Three or four times a year, there would be a talk about "particular friendships." At the time, I did not even know what they were actually talking about. Only later did I realize they were warning us to be careful not to get into a relationship with another student. We were warned of being seen too often with the same person, chatting in the corridor, or having someone in our room. Once in a while a student would leave suddenly. Later, I could discern the reason. He was gay. But at the time, it never dawned on me because no one ever spoke in open terms about this whole phenomenon of gay people.

I learned how to be a priest out of that experience: the narrowly Catholic cultural ghetto I grew up in and the closed seminary life which followed. My preparation to minister pastorally was based on my seminary training. I never got any real understanding of sexuality even as a part of my own psychological development. There were, of course, positive aspects of that training. But what should have been a major pat of it was not there. For all practical purposes our training was very thorough in teaching us how to repress our sexuality in order to be faithful to our promise of celibacy. Questions of human intimacy and of healthy affectionate behavior were never raised. We were simply expected to cope with our sexuality in the best way we could. The goal was simply to avoid sin and eternal damnation. This resulted in serious underdevelopment for the majority of priests and made it almost impossible for us to minister effectively, especially in guiding people toward full acceptance of their sexuality and integration of that into their person, whether homosexual or heterosexual.

I have a younger brother, Dan, who was also in the seminary. As I look back, I can see a pattern in his life that I didn’t pay any attention to at the time. After a few years, he was suddenly dropped from the seminary; there was no explanation and he never said much about it to anybody. I called the provincial of the religious order. But he was very evasive. I had a suspicion why Dan was dropped, but I preferred not to explore further. He was gay, but not wanting to admit it even to himself; he got married and seemed to have a good relationship. He and his wife had four daughters and they lived together for about fifteen years. But then they moved away, and again, I can see that as part of the pattern. Not being able to tell anyone, gay men or lesbians often move away from where they are known. He and his wife moved to the West Coast. He was hiding who he really was and his marriage really wasn’t working out. It came to the point where he knew he had to be honest about who he really is. When his older kids were in their early teens, his marriage broke up. Fortunately for him, he and his wife were able to separate amicably and their children are all still in a good relationship with Dan and his former wife. We were in contact all that time.

In the mid 1980s, my brother sent a very lengthy and detailed letter to my mother, and all of us siblings. The letter was his coming out, telling us he is gay, telling us his whole situation. By this time, he was living with his partner in California and finally had a very humanly enriching life. He had come to complete acceptance of himself as a gay man. He no longer had to deny his most basic identity. He no longer had to run away. He was at peace within himself, and he knew he was loved by God who, of course, had always known exactly who he was as a gay man. He had learned how to integrate his sexuality into his life in a psychologically healthy way.

When I got the letter, however, my reaction was very negative. I am not happy with myself for reacting this way, but at the time the letter made me angry. I knew he sent the letter, but I never read it. I threw aside my brother’s most personal revelation because I was so angry. After I had been ordained a bishop in 1968, I was much more in the public arena in the diocese, and when I got involved in various movements, I was a public figure in an even larger sphere. Part of my anger upon receiving my brother’s letter was rooted in a selfish concern about myself. If my brother became known as a gay person, people in the Church would wonder about me, too, and what would that mean? Could I be publicly seen with my brother? Would I have to shun him? Would negative judgments be made about my family? Would people even wonder if I was gay? Would society’s negative attitudes toward homosexual people be transferred to me?

It was more than I wanted to deal with. And so, even though I knew all of us got the same letter, I never spoke to my mother or any of my siblings about it. And the silence went on for about a year. But it was finally broken, at least indirectly, when one of Dan’s daughters was going to be married. Some of us went to California for the wedding. We all acted very normally and by our actions we, in a way, said it was all right. We were accepting Dan as he is. We were still not going to discuss it and affirm him with our words. Although I presumed the whole family was now at peace about it, I was wrong. My mother was still having a very hard time. She had lived her whole life in the Church, which had never really been welcoming to those who were homosexual. In fact, she had simply understood that being homosexual meant you were a sinner and not able to be loved by God. She knew that she could accept Dan and that she would never stop loving him. But she also could not reject the Church or what she thought was the Church’s teaching.

I discovered how much she was troubled by this conflict between her love for Dan and what she thought the Church was teaching about him when she raised the question to me. I used to stop and visit my mother about once a week because she lived in Detroit where I lived. If I had an event nearby, I would stop by afterward and could always count on getting a bite to eat and visiting with her for a couple of hours. When my mother was in her upper eighties, only a couple of years before she died, she tried to make sure all of her children were taken care of. My oldest sister was in an institution from the time she was very young because of brain damage when she was born. That was one thing my mother was very concerned about—after she died what was going to happen to Loretta? We worked this out so mother was very much at peace with this situation.

But then one night as I was leaving, I stepped out the front door and she followed me out. We were chatting for a few minutes and she then asked the question she had been struggling with: Is Dan going to hell? I knew what she was talking about. For her, someone who was gay was evil and was going to hell. And I’m sure she could not be at peace with that question on her mind. Even though I had not dealt with the whole thing very well myself, I had begun to explore my own feelings and had done much reading and reflection about all the issues concerning homosexuality and Church teaching. I knew that I had to answer her question truthfully. And I was ready. "No, of course not. God made Dan that way and God won’t put him in hell because Dan is a gay person. Dan didn’t choose it. That’s the way Dan is, that’s who he is. God doesn’t send us to hell because of who we are." And so I said it. I brought it all into the open. I know it was very consoling to my mother, but when I said it, it wasn’t just to be consoling. I was not trying to make her feel good so she could die in peace. I knew what I said was the truth.

My mother’s question really opened my eyes about the pain and anguish that many, many people have and especially do experience in the Roman Catholic Church and other churches as well. It is precisely because of a very narrow, negative attitude toward homosexuals. For too long we have allowed prejudiced judgments, expressed in a variety of negative descriptive words and discriminatory actions, to go unchecked. As a mother of a lesbian women described it in a published letter about her daughter, the Church "offered her condemnation instead of compassion. She fears the judgment of most of those who love her because they have been ‘programmed’ to perceive her real identity as being perverted ..." And she goes on to say "My daughter is still honest, charitable and loving and, I am certain, treasured by God who has always known her secret. I am filled with dismay that my church insists she is anything less, while it strives to convince others that she is a threat to society."

I could experience my mother’s anguish in everything this other mother felt about her daughter. And I know that, as a pastoral minister in the Church, I had to act to change this.

The New Ways Ministry national meeting offered the first opportunity. Before this meeting I had not been public about my experience. In fact, I had not spoken to anyone about it. I decided it was time to speak publicly. It was time to say: I am a bishop and I have a gay brother. He is still my brother. He is still part of our family. We fully accept him. And we believe God does also. As soon as I told the story, I realized how important it was to say this. It had an immediate and profound impact on all who heard it. Subsequently, what I said at the conference was written up in the National Catholic Reporter as a feature story. And, prior to the strike and lockout at the Detroit Newspapers, a Detroit Free Press journalist interviewed me and wrote a feature story for the Sunday paper which is distributed throughout Michigan. I felt really good about that. Far from being angry with my brother, I came to admire him for the way he came to self-acceptance and a realization of God’s love in his life. I also admired his courage in risking rejection in order to open the eyes of many others. I was proud of him. Now that I have become public about our family, and told my "story," a whole new area of ministry opened up for me. I have been able to respond to a large number of people who contact me from the whole homosexual community and from their families. Where Andrew Sullivan found nothing in the Church, I have been able to put some compassionate listening and some careful guidance.

To me it has been a very enriching experience. I have heard from people who have gone through very, very hard times: gay people, lesbian people, parents, priests afraid to tell their bishop they are gay. They didn’t know where to turn, but now they felt they could share their story with me. I have been able to listen sensitively and offer understanding to an extraordinary number of people. I have been able to guide many who were in much turmoil. And I have met many good people who helped me understand even better. It had been a struggle for me to reach this point, but when I did I discovered many beautiful people who are suffering a lot and who so much need good pastoral ministry. And now I also realize how important it is to reach out pastorally and to make the Church a truly welcoming and inclusive community.

At the end of the U.S. Bishops’ pastoral letter Always Our Children, we state:
To our homosexual brothers and sisters we offer a concluding word. This message has been an outstretched hand to your parents and families inviting them to accept God’s grace present in their lives and to trust in the unfailing mercy of Jesus our Lord. Now we stretch out our hands and invite you to do the same. We are called to become one body, one spirit in Christ. We need one another if we are to "... grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love" (Eph 4:15-16).

Though at times you may feel discouraged, hurt, or angry, do not walk away from your families, from the Christian community, from all those who love you. In you God’s love is revealed. You are always our children.

This genuine reaching out and the invitation to our homosexual brothers and sisters to respond by reaching back to us, and journeying with the whole community with an awareness that God’s love is revealed in them as it is in all of us, is the first step in making our Church a truly inclusive Church.

Succeeding steps are also suggested in this pastoral letter. A couple of additional quotes make clear what these steps must be: (1) The teachings of the Church make it clear that the fundamental human rights of homosexual persons must be defended and that all of us must strive to eliminate any forms of injustice, oppression, or violence against them. (2) It is not sufficient only to avoid unjust discrimination. Homosexual persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358). They, as is true of every human being, need to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously. This includes friendship, which is a way of loving and is essential to healthy human development. It is one of the richest possible human experiences. (3) More than twenty years ago we bishops stated that "Homosexuals ... should have an active role in the Christian community." What does this mean in practice? It means that all homosexual persons have a right to be welcomed into the community, to hear the word of God, and to receive pastoral care. (4) Nothing in the Bible or in Catholic teaching can be used to justify prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes and behaviors. We reiterate here what we said in an earlier statement: We call on all Christians and citizens of good will to confront their own fears about homosexuality and to curb the humor and discrimination that offend homosexual persons. We understand that having a homosexual orientation brings with it enough anxiety, pain and issues related to self-acceptance without society bringing the additional prejudicial treatment.

However, even with these position statements, we still need to do more. We need to face the reality that there is a basic incoherence in the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. This is brought out very poignantly by Andrew Sullivan in the interview quoted previously. He, first of all, makes the point that, according to official Church teaching, homosexuality has no finality. He puts it this way: "It is bizarre that something can occur naturally and have no natural end. I think it’s a unique doctrine ..." He goes on to point out that the Church concedes in the Catechism "That homosexuality is, so far as one can tell, an involuntary condition ..." It is an orientation ... "and it is involuntary. Some people seem to be constitutively homosexual."

But the contradiction or incoherence of the teaching arises with the expression of the condition, when one acts on what he or she is constitutively as a human person. As he puts it:
Yet the expression of this condition, which is involuntary and therefore sinless—because if it is involuntary, obviously no sin attaches—is always and everywhere sinful! Well, I could rack my brains for an analogy in any other Catholic doctrine that would come up with such a notion. Philosophically, it is incoherent, fundamentally incoherent. People are born with all sorts of things. We are born with original sin, but that is in itself sinful—an involuntary condition but it is sin.

The analogy might be thought to be disability, but at the core of what disabled human beings can be—which means their spiritual and emotional life—the church not only affirms the equal dignity of disabled people in that regard but encourages us to see it and to take away the prejudice of not believing a disabled person can lead a full and integrated human life even though they cannot walk or they experience some other disability.

But the disability that we are asked to believe that we are about is fundamental to our integrity as emotional beings, as I understand it. Now, I have tried to understand what this doctrine is about because my life is at stake in it. I believe God thinks there is a final end for me and others that is related to our essence as images of God and as people who are called to love ourselves and others. I am drawn, in the natural way I think human beings are drawn, to love and care for another person. I agree with the church’s teaching about natural law in that regard. I think we are called to commitment and to fidelity, and I see that all around me in the gay world. I see, as one was taught that one would see something in natural law, self-evident activity leading toward this final end, which is commitment and love: the need and desire and hunger for that. That is the sensus fidelium, and there is no attempt within the church right now even to bring that sense into the teaching or into the discussion of the teaching.

You see it even in the documents. The documents will say, on the one hand compassion, on the other hand objective disorder. A document that can come up with this phrase, "not unjust discrimination," is contorted because the church is going in two different directions at once with this doctrine. On the one hand, it is recognizing the humanity of the individual being; on the other, it is not letting that human being be fully human.

The Catholic Church’s teaching about moral questions regarding marriage and sexuality, questions of intimacy, of one person loving another, has undergone enrichment over the centuries. This has happened especially in modern times when moral theology began to use the insights drawn from the lived experience of married men and women. An example of early Church teaching on marriage, and specifically the place of sex, is found in a directive from Pope Gregory I to St. Augustine, first archbishop of Canterbury in the beginning of the seventh century, "Since even the lawful intercourse of the wedded cannot take place without pleasure of the flesh, entrance into a sacred place shall be abstained from because the pleasure itself can by no means be without sin." Such a directive expresses a clearly negative attitude toward sex in marriage and the pleasure to be found in married love. The Church was teaching that it was sinful to enjoy and relish one’s sexual love. It was sinful and would preclude participation in the Eucharist. Today, we have people writing moral theology textbooks and treatises who are lay people, many of whom are in a married relationship, and many who are women. This development offers opportunities for new perspectives. In fact, Pope John Paul II has given us a document, a lyrical and beautiful document about married life and married love which totally transcends what Pope Gregory said. And so we have evolved our teaching substantially in what we understand as morally good and morally healthy.

What God really wants for each of us is that we become as fully a human person as possible and that we avoid those things which diminish us and make us less than fully human. In this perspective we realize the importance of integrating our sexuality into our development as a person. And we understand the struggle that everyone has in trying to integrate her/his sexuality in the framework of her/his life. As a celibate person, I have to discover the way I can be healthy psychologically, and know how to love other people, including having intimacy without physical sexual intimacy. I feel I am called to celibacy, that I have to struggle within that framework. Married people have to integrate their sexuality into their relationship with one another. Their coming together in sexual love must be in a way of total giving to one another. It must be a way for them to express their total communion of life, a sacrament bringing the presence of God who is Love into their relationship. Their physical love expresses what should be present in every aspect of their lives: complete and unconditional love. Obviously, the fullness of such love becomes realized only over years of married life. And as they grow in love they grow into full humanness.

Gay and lesbian persons must struggle to learn how to love also. They too must learn how to integrate their sexuality into genuine intimacy with another person. How to do this, when one has no call to celibacy, is something that moral theology has not grappled with to any extent. We do know what God wants for all of us. God wills that each one of us becomes a fully human person; fully developed as a human person and, therefore, a person who is at peace within oneself; one who develops the talents and skills that one is given. This will happen through our loving relationships. And for most people it will happen through a special relationship with another person in a very loving and nurturing way.

From this it seems clear that the most important way to judge what is morally right or wrong in our actions is to discern what makes us more or less a fully developed human person. This discernment is very important as we are drawn into sexual relationships, but also in any human relationship where we are trying to develop intimacy. What is morally right will always make us a better person. An early Church axiom put it this way: "The glory of God is man (sic) fully alive." So the commandments or moral laws that we learn about are not just hoops that somehow God wants to make us jump through. That is not the point at all. God is trying to show us the way. And for a Christian, the way is Jesus who for us is the full revelation of God present in the world. He showed us the way to fullness of life—the only way—the way of Love.

In order to deepen our understanding of homosexual love, we must listen to the experience of homosexual people as they struggle to become fully the person each is called to be. Just as moral theologians began to use the insights of married people in developing guidance for the living out of married love, so must moral theologians begin to draw from the experience of those who are called to integrate their homosexuality into their lives in a fully life-giving way. Once again I turn to Andrew Sullivan, who is Roman Catholic and gay. His own experience is very enlightening and serves as a concrete example of what I am suggesting:
Being gay is not about sex as such. Fundamentally, it’s about one’s core emotional identity. Fundamentally, it’s about how one loves ultimately and how that can make one a whole as a human being.

The moral consequences, in my own life, of the refusal to allow myself to love another human being, were disastrous. They made me permanently frustrated and angry and bitter. It spilled into other areas of my life. Once that emotional blockage is removed, one’s whole moral equilibrium can improve, just as a single person’s moral equilibrium in a whole range of areas can improve with marriage, in many ways, because there is a kind of stability and security and rock upon which to build one’s moral and emotional life. To deny this to gay people is not only incoherent and wrong from the Christian point of view. It is incredibly destructive of the moral quality of their lives in general.

So we ask, does that make sense? Does it make sense to teach people to avoid loving, intimate relationships when the result is permanent frustration? anger? bitterness? That was his result. It affected his whole life including his relationship within his family, with his friends and so forth. That was his experience in trying to live the way the Church had taught him to live. It was not healthy; it was not life giving. He was asked about the contradiction between trying to be Catholic and trying to be homosexual and active:
There is a basic contradiction. I completely concede that, at one level. At another level—and I confronted this, actually, with my first boyfriend, who was also Roman Catholic. When we had a fight one day, he said: "Do you really believe that what we are doing is wrong? Because if you do, I can’t go on with this. And yet you don’t want to challenge the Church’s teaching on this, or leave the Church." And of course I was forced to say I don’t believe, at some level, I really do not believe that the love of one person for another and the commitment of one person to another, in the emotional construct which homosexuality dictates to us—I know in my heart of hearts that cannot be wrong. I know that there are many things within homosexual life that can be wrong—just as in heterosexual life they can be wrong. There are many things in my sexual and emotional life that I do not believe are spiritually pure, in any way. It is fraught with moral danger, but at its deepest level it struck me as completely inconceivable—from my own moral experience, from a real honest attempt to understand that experience—that it was wrong.

I experienced coming out in exactly the way you would think. I didn’t really express any homosexual emotions or commitments or relationships until I was in my early 20’s, partly because of the strict religious upbringing I had, and my commitment to my faith. It was not something I blew off casually. I struggled enormously with it. But as soon as I actually explored the possibility of human contact within my emotional and sexual make-up, in other words, as soon as I allowed myself to love someone—all the constructs the Church had taught me about the inherent disorder seemed just so self-evidently wrong that I could no longer find it that problematic. Because my own moral sense was overwhelming, because I felt, through the experience of loving someone or being allowed to love someone, an enormous sense of the presence of God—for the first time in my life.

In the Christian context, what he is saying comes from the Letter of John: "God is love, and where there is love, there is God" (1 John 4:16). He is saying: "When I really allowed myself to love and be loved, for the first time in my life, I deeply experienced the presence of God because God is love!" But we have not listened to what gay/lesbian people tell us: that they find their relationships life giving, that their relationships have the potential to build them up, that they deepen their sense of the presence of God, and thus are sacramental.

But the really big problem for gay and lesbian people as they try to grow into full human persons is how to deal with the clear teaching of the Church. In the letter Always Our Children, the U.S. bishops teach:
To live and love chastely is to understand that "only within marriage does sexual intercourse fully symbolize the Creator’s dual design, as an act of covenant love, with the potential of co-creating new human life" (United States Catholic Conference, "Human Sexuality: A Catholic Perspective for Education and Lifelong Learning," 1991, p.55). This is a fundamental teaching of our Church about sexuality, rooted in the biblical account of man and woman created in the image of God and made for union with one another (Genesis 2–3).

Two conclusions follow. First, it is God’s plan that sexual intercourse occur only within marriage between a man and a woman. Second, every act of intercourse must be open to the possible creation of human life. Homosexual intercourse cannot fulfill these two conditions. Therefore, the Church teaches that homogenital behavior is objectively immoral, while making the important distinction between this behavior and a homosexual orientation, which is not immoral in itself. It is also important to recognize that neither a homosexual orientation, nor a heterosexual one, leads inevitably to sexual activity. One’s total personhood is not reducible to sexual orientation or behavior.

This is clear Church teaching. But also there is within the Catholic tradition, a fundamental moral teaching which comes before anything else. It is the teaching regarding "primacy of conscience." That is to say, each of us has the responsibility to explore our conscience and make judgments regarding moral choices and to determine what is life giving or not. And that means that the judgment I make in my conscience is the final arbiter of what is right or wrong for me. It is a heavy responsibility and some people would rather not take it upon themselves. They would prefer that the Church just tell them if this or that is right or wrong. But we must accept this responsibility. We must say to ourselves, "I’ve got this responsibility. I’ve got to deal with this and come to a conclusion in my own conscience and I’ve got to stand before God with what I decide."

The Second Vatican Council speaks of this teaching. It describes one’s conscience as the divine voice echoing in our own depth, within our own spirit as a law written by God in human hearts. In other words, we have been given this sense of what is good and what is bad. A person must always obey the certain judgment of his/her own conscience. And so when we are trying to discern what is right or wrong in the depth of our own hearts, we have to listen as deeply as we can to what God speaks in our hearts. We look within ourselves and try to determine what is our experience. We must reflect on this experience in the context of what has been revealed in Scripture. We must also consider Catholic tradition which for two thousand years has been reflecting on the teaching from this Word of God; we must take our experience into our communion with God in our own prayer. Finally, we discern with the help of another person, a spiritual guide who can provide counsel and direction for us. On the basis of this discernment, we can come to a decision in conscience. That decision is what we must act on and that is what will make us grow spiritually and personally. Yes, we can lie to ourselves, but we also know when we are being honest with ourselves. Obviously, we can make a mistake, but if we are honest, we will discover we made a mistake and can then move in a different direction.

Some may ask if this means there is no longer moral law and anything goes. But anyone who takes the concept of primary of conscience seriously will quickly realize that it is a very challenging way to live. The goal is to make oneself a fully human person, living at peace and serenity within oneself. Such a peace and serenity is virtually impossible if one is being untrue to him/herself.

A clear example of the use of this teaching within the Church is found when we consider the moral question of the intent to use nuclear weapons. These are weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction. Catholic moral teaching from the highest authoritative source, the Second Vatican Council, has condemned their use without exception:
With these truths in mind, this most holy Synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent Popes, and issues the following declaration: Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities or of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and humankind. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.

The teaching is very clear. Yet no Catholic on a Trident submarine, or a Strategic Air Command plane, or based at a missile silo has ever been condemned for carrying out the U.S. policy of deterrence which includes the clear intent to use such weapons. No Catholic in the whole military chain of command which obeys this policy has ever, to my knowledge, been refused the Eucharist because he or she is a public sinner. In fact, these persons in the military are provided with Catholic priest chaplains who provide them the full ministry of the Church.

Obviously, what is happening in this situation is an acceptance that each person is exercising his or her right to make a decision in conscience. That justifies, in their individual discernment, acting contrary to the clear teaching of the Church. In this particular moral question—probably the most grave moral question human beings have ever faced—I presume military chaplains clearly present this teaching in specific detail, in Sunday sermons at military bases and in individual pastoral counseling. The need to place conscience above the obligation to obey military commands is one of the most important moral challenges of our time. While individuals in the military carefully discern how their conscience directs them, the bishops, moral leaders in the Church, allow them full freedom to act as they determine is right for them. I presume the bishops hope that eventually they will discover that their actions are not morally acceptable and that they will refuse to continue acting contrary to clear Church teaching.

My expectation is that the Church, especially its bishop leaders, will act the same way toward homosexual people who may from their conscience discernment determine to live in a way contrary to Church teaching. We will continue to present the teaching clearly. But at the same time we will respect the rights of conscience as every person struggles to find his or her way to God.

I am convinced that as our whole Church struggles to understand the phenomenon of homosexuality, gay and lesbian people can be an important resource for us as they struggle within their own consciences to discern how their sexuality is to be integrated into their own lives in the most humanly and spiritually enriching way possible to them. The Word of God, the tradition of the Church, their own deep prayer life and careful discernment with a director/spiritual guide, are all available to them. As they undertake their individual human journey, we, as Church, need to develop a much more pastoral ministry so that the alienation and the hurt and the pain they have experienced will be eliminated; so that gay brothers and lesbian sisters, sons and daughters will know that they are fully welcome within our church communities. As we welcome them, love them, respect them, and deeply listen to them, we will come to be more manifestly the living presence of Jesus that his community of disciples is called to be.

Over the centuries a listening Church was enriched by a deeper understanding of married sexual love. Is it not possible that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters will enrich all of us with a deeper understanding of homosexual love? We can hope for the day when the "Andrew Sullivans" of our Church will feel fully welcome and experience a ministry that is responsive to their needs.