‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back’ – Vatican’s Confounding Decision Making

Opinion

‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back’ – Vatican’s Confounding Decision Making

Mary Ellen Chown, M.Div. (Catholic Network for Women’s Equality), Oakville, ON

Volume 35  Issue 4, 5 & 6 | Posted: July 8, 2021

When Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina became Pope eight years ago this month, many progressive Catholics had great hope. From the outset, Pope Francis humbly eschewed the royal trappings that had come to be associated with the papacy, and his openness to dialogue let a breath of fresh air into a troubled Church and world.

During his tenure, Pope Francis has indeed been a global voice for peace, for human rights over unbridled capitalism, for the plight of migrants and refugees, and for an end to capital punishment. His encyclical on the environment, Laudato si’, is a prophetic clarion call to prevent the destruction of the planet.

Many were also optimistic when Pope Francis famously responded to a question in 2013 saying, “If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?”, which became shortened to “Who am I to judge?”. It was thought then that a wider acceptance of LGBTQ2+ persons in the life of the Catholic Church might be possible under Pope Francis’ leadership. This week however, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with Pope Francis’ assent, responded to the question of the Church imparting blessings on same-sex couples with a resounding no.

The Church admits this decree is an effort to stop same-sex blessings that are already happening in Catholic parishes, as priests and same-sex couples exercise their right to faithfully dissent from Catholic teaching. This decree continues a confounding decision-making pattern on the part of Pope Francis and the Vatican of ‘one step forward, two-steps back’, in the eyes of those who yearn for more significant reform.

The rationale that the Catholic hierarchy uses to prohibit same-sex blessings exhibits a concerning double standard that conflicts with its own teaching that sexuality is an integral God-given part of every human person. The Church hierarchy condones only the sexual expression of married heterosexual persons who are open to the “transmission of life” (meaning, not using “artificial” birth control).

Church law allows heterosexual Catholics in committed relationships to be sacramentally married in the Church, often with a beautiful ceremony that witnesses the couple’s love before God and community. Same-sex couples, however, are expected to repress and renounce their sexual expressions of love and are offered no blessing in the Church. The Church has declared their relationships as not “ordered to the revealed plans of God” and thus are deemed “intrinsically disordered” and “sinful”.

The Church decree concludes that same-sex unions cannot be blessed because God “does not and cannot bless sin.” While the hierarchy claims its intent is not to unjustly discriminate, the judgmental nature of its argument and abhorrent terms such as “intrinsically disordered” serve to perpetuate discrimination in the Church and beyond.

A further fundamental difficulty with the rationale in this decree (and other Catholic moral teaching on marriage and women’s ordination) is the assumption that the Church hierarchy has exclusive access to the ‘mind of God’ and simply functions as the objective purveyor of God’s law to the faithful.

Like any other institution, however, the Catholic hierarchy is comprised of humans with strengths and flaws. They are therefore susceptible to creating laws, governance structures and even liturgical rites that condone and continue homophobia, sexism and gender discrimination.

Rather than condemning same-sex blessings, the Catholic Church hierarchy would do well to concentrate on ensuring generous and swift justice for clergy sexual abuse survivors and ensuring that all perpetrators and bishops who have covered up abuse, are called to answer for it in court. Rome could also focus their energy on opening up the Church to the participation of women at all levels, so that women would finally no longer be second-class citizens in their own Church.

Pope Francis’ rightful concern about a culture of clericalism in the Church could also be fervently dismantled and replaced with parish structures that engage people and priests as equals in the building of diverse, healthy Christian communities – a place where all are welcomed and supported and outreach to alleviate human suffering is an essential service.

Hopefully Catholics who disagree with this decree, both those who are members of parishes and those who, in good conscience, have had to walk away from the Catholic Church will make their views known to a priest, bishop and/or the Pope. If these Church leaders are then willing to finally listen and hear the anguish and harm that such decrees of exclusion cause, one day there may be room in the heart of every Catholic parish to celebrate loving relationships of all kinds with a joyous blessing.

   

Mary Ellen Chown, M.Div. (Catholic Network for Women’s Equality), Oakville, ON