Vatican paper deals with homosexualitty
Written by Mark Harris on November 29th, 2005This issue is going to be on the front burner for some time so thought it would be an interesting topic of conversation.
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - The Vatican newspaper said on Tuesday that homosexuality risked “destabilizing people and society”, had no social or moral value and could never match the importance of the relationship between a man and a woman.
The remarks were contained in a long commentary published to accompany the official release of a long-awaited document that restricted the access of homosexual men to the Roman Catholic priesthood.
The article by Monsignor Tony Anatrella, a French Jesuit and psychologist, said homosexuality could not be considered an acceptable moral alternative to heterosexuality.
“During these past years, homosexuality has become a phenomenon that is always increasingly worrying and in many countries is considered a quality that is normal,” the article in L’Osservatore Romano said.
The article was specifically approved by the Vatican’s secretariat of state.
“It (homosexuality) does not represent a social value and even less so a moral virtue that could add to the civilization of sexuality,” Anatrella said. “It could even be seen as a destabilizing reality for people and for society.”
The Catholic Church, the article said, had a duty to reaffirm its position that homosexuality is “against conjugal life, the life of the family, and priestly life”.
“In no case is this form of sexuality a sexual alternative, or even less, a reality that is equivalent to that which is shared by a man and a woman engaged in matrimonial life,” the Italian-language article said.
“It (homosexuality) cannot be encouraged or even less so, supported with pastoral initiatives,” it said in an apparent reference to Catholic priests who administer to homosexuals without reminding them of the Church’s position against gay sex.
It said homosexuality was “a sexual tendency and not an identity” and repeated the Church’s stand against allowing gays to marry or to adopt children. It also called homosexuality “an incomplete and immature part of human sexuality”.
It repeated some themes in the Vatican document, and added a list of ways seminary directors could determine if a candidate for the priesthood had overcome homosexual tendencies or risked not being able to respect the Church rule of priestly celibacy.
21
PM
I think it is important to note that the position of the Catholic church on homosexuality is irrelevant to the American political process. We are not a theocracy and thus must not allow legislation to be influenced by the beliefs of any religion.
I would also like to point out that even most fair-minded individuals against gay marriage acknowledge that homosexuality is a biologically based condition, and thus involuntary; how then could homosexual behavior be considered immoral? In order for an action or behavior to be considered immoral, I believe it is necessary for the individual to choose to engage in the behavior in question.
Also, why is it necessary to prevent gay marriage in the first place? No one is threatened by it, and I would love to hear an argument that suggests otherwise.
29
PM
I happen to be gay, Republican, and Catholic. If I could chose otherwise on the former, it’s pretty obvious that it would make my life a great deal easier. However, I was born that way and have matured enough to know it would be impossible and miserable to try and deny.
I am not a threat to anyone and understanding the origins of sexuality, am not out to convert anyone. I am a good member of my family, my church, my party, and of society, and always have been. In no way do I de-stabilize anything. It could probably be said that society de-stabilizes me a little.
I could care less about ‘gay marriage’. It’s a smokescreen issue. I think homosexuality should not be a political or governmental issue. The GOP would benefit greatly from realizing this and embracing the gay people that are brave enough to fight for it and the many that would like to. Neither party has truly accepted homosexuality and so the Democrats usually win gay support by default. The first party to truly recognize and accept the gay members of our society (and our families) will see very positive results for a very long time.
29
PM
I missed this post originally somehow. Two things: I think InsiderX3 is right in that this should not be a government issue. Neither the Feds or the states (unless they so choose, 10th amendment) be involved in the marriage process.
Second, I am growing weary of ‘warnings’ from the catholic big-wigs and the republican party pretending as though more than 10 catholics vote GOP. For decades on end, the catholics have been solidly liberal and wedded to the Dem party. Not long ago, the Vatican put out something on global warming. Really? Of course in 2004, the vatican refused to address the potential leader of the free world (John Kerry) carrying the banner of nearly everything that the church stands against.
30
AM
“For decades on end, the catholics have been solidly liberal and wedded to the Dem party.”
Dave is wrong, and could have looked at the polls that I posted to show that he was wrong last time. They show that a majority of Catholics voted Republican in the last Presidential election:
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5297138/
Sincerely,
A Catholic Democrat
30
AM
Publius, that’s a recent shift. Catholics have traditionally been Democrats throughout the years and the northeast which is heavily Catholic is also heavily Democratic.
30
PM
Sam is correct with respect to the change in Catholic voting trends being recent phenomena. Unfortunately, the Catholic alliance to the democrats is more historically based than value based. As the older generation of Catholics dies off, I would expect to see the “John Paul II” generation align with the GOP since their values on life and family are more consistent.
The original post itself is just reaffirming Catholic teaching; this is not a novel stance. We are definitely not a theocracy, but I would argue that laws in a representative system reflect the morals and values of a people. The Church is providing guidance to its membership on what it considers idea: a family consisting of a man and a woman is essential for fostering the next generation…a concept that has worked for millennia. I am not quite sure, why some respondents feel Catholics should not be speaking out or trying to regulate something some may consider is damaging to the nation. Isn’t that the point of a democratic system? Like abortion, it would make sense to determine this issue on a state level; let the people decide directly.
Your assertion is not quite correct, ChemistryDave. Members of the Church’s hierarchy have spoken out against pro-abortion lawmakers. From a cannon law perspective, lawmakers like Pelosi, Kerry, etc, who vote for abortion measures are no longer in communion with the Church. Their actions resulted in their own excommunication.
“Any Catholic politicians who advocate for abortion, for illicit stem cell research or for any form of euthanasia ipso facto place themselves outside full communion with the Church and so jeopardize their salvation. Any Catholics who vote for candidates who stand for abortion, illicit stem cell research or euthanasia suffer the same fateful consequences. It is for this reason that these Catholics, whether candidates for office or those who would vote for them, may not receive Holy Communion until they have recanted their positions and been reconciled with God and the Church in the Sacrament of Penance.” -Michael Sheridan, Bishop of Colorado Springs (entire text available at: http://www.diocs.org/CPC/Corner/pastoralletters_view.cfm?year=2004&month=May)
Pope Benedict XVI supports this stance,
Catholic members of Congress who publicly support the right to abortion will trek to Nationals Park Thursday for a Mass celebrated by a pope who has said such lawmakers should not receive Communion…Benedict’s stance on abortion and Communion has been painful for elected officials who inhabit the troubled zone where Catholicism and their political beliefs intersect (available: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9037ITO1&show_article=1&catnum=0).
Naturally, Pelosi still went for communion. What would we expect from a person, who drinks tea with Assad? With respect to the Vatican in 2004, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) supported this stance. At that point, Pope JPII’s PD was very advanced; I would not have expected much leadership at that time.
30
PM
“Members of the Church’s hierarchy have spoken out against pro-abortion lawmakers. From a cannon law perspective, lawmakers like Pelosi, Kerry, etc, who vote for abortion measures are no longer in communion with the Church. Their actions resulted in their own excommunication.”
Somehow I have missed the church shunning Peolsi and Kerry. If anyone can find any evidence of this, please post it. I seriously doubt that an excommunicated Catholic was 100000 votes away from becoming the next president in 2004.
30
PM
The official word seems to be that there was a widely publicized report that Kerry was excommunicated, and a lesser-reported retraction of the original story. Apparently a Catholic lobbied the Church for an excommunication of Kerry, and that same Catholic spread the word that the excommunication was official. The Church eventually responded to the reports by stating that members are only excommunicated for actually performing or having an abortion.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0405749.htm
31
AM
In June 2004, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) sent guidance entitled “Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion. General Principles” to US bishops regarding the Church’s stance on pro-abortion/euthanasia/embryonic stem cell research politicians. Perhaps point 5 outlines the Catholic position best:
5. Regarding the grave sin of abortion or euthanasia, when a person’s formal cooperation becomes manifest (understood, in the case of a Catholic politician, as his consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws), his Pastor should meet with him, instructing him about the Church’s teaching, informing him that he is not to present himself for Holy Communion until he brings to an end the objective situation of sin, and warning him that he will otherwise be denied the Eucharist (end quote). Full text at: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2005/apr/050419a.html.
The Cardinal added:
N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons (end quote).
Additionally, in April 2004, Francis Cardinal Arinze, the Vatican’s leading prelate on the Sacraments, “declared unequivocally that unambiguously pro-abortion politicians should be denied Holy Communion. Cardinal Arinze said such a politician ‘is not fit’ to receive Communion. ‘If they should not receive, then they should not be given,’ he added.”
The primary problem that occurred during that election cycle was that Theodore Cardinal McCarrick, who was the former archbishop of Washington DC, failed to distribute the Vatican directive as detailed below:
Although it was sent to the US Bishops via Cardinal McCarrick by Cardinal Ratzinger, the document was not revealed to the US Bishops. Rather McCarrick gave the impression that Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter indicated Rome was ambiguous about the matter. Speaking of Ratzinger’s letter in a June 15, 2004 statement to the US Bishops, Cardinal McCarrick said, “the Cardinal (Ratzinger) recognizes that there are circumstances in which Holy Communion may be denied” (end quote). Full story at: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2006/oct/06102310.html.
Due to their non-profit status, the American Church is essentially hamstrung, however, in its ability to chastise a candidate by name. They can be influential by condemn/supporting important issues and can condemn a “generic lawmaker,” who embraces the culture of death.
31
PM
There is more to the question of pro-abortion Catholic officials receiving Communion (”the Eucharist”) than perhaps it is possible to adequately convey in a blog post and subsequent comments and links.
It’s a deep question of FAITH that even the most informed and educated person may never be able to fully understand intellectually and appreciate spiritually.
The question itself is centered on the Catholic belief in the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and what Catholics believe receiving the Eucharist means for the individual person and for the entire Church. For Catholics, the Eucharist is loving, saving, nourishing and unifying all at once.
Also at issue is the Catholic sacrament of Reconciliation (”Confession”). Because, technically-speaking, after a pro-abortion Catholic official casts a pro-abortion vote, they could confess that act in the Sacrament of Reconciliation and receive forgiveness for the sin — which makes it possible for them to again receive the Eucharist in good conscience. But, the public at large would not know this because what happens during Reconciliation is known only to the individual and the priest. (Although, it is important to note, during the Sacrament, the person will pray a prayer called The Act of Contrition in which they say “I firmly resolve … to sin no more.”)
Giuliani, Pelosi, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy — ask yourselves why they want to go to Communion. They know they probably shouldn’t receive because they are pro-choice.
But, ingrained in them — ingrained in all cradle Catholics at a young age — is the teaching that receiving the Eucharist means receiving Christ into your body, into your life and into your soul. My guess is that they think getting into the Communion line at Mass is worth risking the ire of their bishop.
31
PM
I agree that these are very complex issues of faith. I think your point on the Act of Contrition is more the governing principle in this matter. If a pro-abortion politician enters the confessional and asks God for forgiveness for a vote they cast but does not feel it was wrong or intends to vote pro-abortion in the future, is that person sorry? Has he/she learned anything from their sin? Is he/she really in communion with the Church?
I think the reason why we see pro-abortion politicians continuing to accept communion despite the Church’s stance on the issue is a bit more complex than just being raised Catholic. If such a politician did not receive communion, they would essentially be saying that their vote was morally wrong, and from the Church’s perspective, that politician would be supporting infanticide. From my viewpoint, this is why Pelosi et al showed such disrespect by announcing they would receive the Eucharist during the Pope’s mass at Nationals Park; they were explicitly making a point to the person, who wrote the guidelines on this issue in 2004.