In August 2018 The Guardian (international edition) carried a report by Juan Carlos Cruz, one of the Chilean survivors of sexual abuse who has been at the forefront of getting Pope Francis to realize the depth and extent of the sexual abuse crisis in the Catholic Church in Chile. Juan Carlos reported the Pope’s words to the Spanish newspaper El país:

He told me: "Juan Carlos, that you are gay does not matter. God made you like this and God loves you like this. The Pope loves you like this. You have to be happy with who you are."

Every person, regardless of sexual orientation, must be respected in his or her dignity. Pope Francis

My purpose in the following pages is to survey recent Catholic Church teaching on homosexuality, particularly the two Vatican documents issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (hereafter CDF), the 1975 Declaration on Certain Questions Section 8 (also known by its Latin title Persona Humana), and the 1986 Letter to Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (also known as Homosexualitatis Problema). I refer to these throughout as the 1975 Declaration and the 1986 Letter. I shall also quote or refer to some statements by Catholic bishops of New Zealand past and present.

On December 29, 1975 the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) published Declaration on Certain Questions of Sexual Ethics. Section 8 of this document treats of homosexuality. Although the wording of the English version of this document is at times clumsy, in fact there is much in the document that is very positive. For example, a clear distinction is drawn between homosexuals whose homosexuality is temporary and those whose homosexuality is permanent and are homosexual because of some kind of innate impulse.

Note well that this 1975 Declaration acknowledges explicitly that, for some, their homosexuality is permanent and innate. If people are born gay or lesbian, their sexual orientation must also pre-date birth; it does not arrive with one’s first breath. Since sexuality is obviously a fundamental component of one’s being, can we not conclude that sexual orientation is present from the moment of our conception? Certainly, the only persons who can decide whether their homosexuality is innate are the persons themselves. And if a person is born gay or lesbian, then homosexuality is the natural disposition of that person.

A second very positive aspect of the document is the statement: “Many argue that the condition of the second type of homosexual (those whose homosexuality is innate) is so natural that it justifies homosexual relations for them, in the context of a genuine partnership in life and love analogous to marriage, and granted that they feel quite incapable of leading solitary lives.” The document then goes on to state explicitly that pastoral approach to persons in such relationships should be considerate and kind, and it urges prudence in any judgement of culpability.

Note that the 1975 Declaration does not express approval of same-sex relationships, but they are referred to respectfully as a genuine partnership in life and love similar to marriage. The document emphasises that persons in such relationships should certainly be treated with kindness and consideration; and it very clearly urges prudence in any judgement of culpability.

The Declaration then adds: “But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of these persons. For according to the objective moral order homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality.”

However, Father Jan Visser, one of the authors of the Declaration said in a later interview that persons who are so deeply homosexual that they will be in serious personal and perhaps social trouble unless they attain a committed homosexual relationship can certainly be recommended to seek such a relationship. (1)

If we compare the above statement by Fr Jan Visser with the immediately preceding quotation from the Declaration, we find that Visser is in fact presenting a pastoral approach to persons who are deeply homosexual, based on or justified by the needs of these persons (the likelihood of their serious personal and perhaps social trouble) and he certainly gives a clear impression of approving, encouraging, even advocating, that they be recommended to seek a committed same–sex relationship that would surely include among its emotional, psychological, human expressions a genital sexual component. Since Fr. Visser’s statement appears to contradict the Declaration (of which he was an author), inevitable questions arise.

Fortunately, Fr Sean O’Riordan, Vice-Rector of the Alphonsianum in Rome, helpfully explains that the Declaration had three authors: Fr Lio, a Franciscan theologian, Cardinal Palazzini, a former professor of theology, and Fr Jan Visser, a former professor of theology. O’Riordan continues: “The Declaration reproduces in large part a chapter in a book, already published by Cardinal Palazzini…The document reproduces, almost verbally, what Cardinal Palazzini says in his book… The document does embody a compassionate flexible pastoral practice – this is mainly derived from Fr JanVisser.” (2)

The Declaration, then, reflects two approaches to morality. The modern personalist approach (favoured by Visser) is centred on persons and personal relationships. The traditional school (favoured by Palazzini) is centred on laws, norms, abstract principles. But O’Riordan reminds us: “The good theologian of the traditional school will always be a man of great pastoral care and compassion and his pastoral practice will always be flexible and never rigid – this is because he understands his own theological tradition and he knows the difference between principles and persons.” (3)

I have quoted Fr O’Riordan at some length because he obviously has insider status in Rome, so his information provides a down-to-earth perspective on statements from the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of the papal office such as the 1975 Declaration and the 1986 Letter. In both of these cases the magisterium is being exercised through subordinates in the CDF or elsewhere. It is certainly of interest that large part of the Declaration had a life of its own as a chapter in Cardinal Palazzini’s book before it became a directive from the ordinary magisterium of the papal office. Perhaps Fr O’Riordan’s comment that an uncritical approach to this document is of service to no one may sensibly be applied to all such documents from the CDF.

Regarding the now famous 1986 Letterno other document on homosexuality has provoked such a storm of criticism. The Letter is lengthy, with 18 sections and a total of 51 paragraphs. Three Sections (4,5,6) are given over to a discussion of biblical references to homosexual activity. But the repetition of scriptural views or judgements of homosexual activity is irrelevant to today’s debate. Jewish writers of Ancient Israel or Christian writers of first century AD had no understanding of homosexuality as a universally recognised sexual orientation. Homosexuality as a psychosexual orientation was unknown until the mid-19th century and did not achieve universal acceptance until the second half of the 20th century. Biblical writers would have assumed that the persons they referred to in the biblical texts concerning homosexuality were in fact heterosexual. In Romans 1:26-32 Paul clearly understood homosexual activity as that indulged in by heterosexual persons. (4)Robin Scroggs in his study of the subject in The New Testament and Homosexuality concludes: “Biblical judgements against homosexuality are not relevant to today’s debate.” (5) Besides, Jesus Christ is the central norm through which and by which all else is judged. (6)Jesus grew up and lived all his life in a land under occupation by Roman soldiery. Jesus was intelligent, observant and streetwise. Of course he would have been aware of the same-sex activity that was almost certainly present among Roman soldiers. In the first century AD Roman Law prohibited heterosexual marriage for serving Roman soldiers. (7)Yet in the Gospels we have no record of Jesus saying anything about homosexuality, or of referencing it in any way, either as a state of being or as a practice.

Paragraph 2 of Section 3 of the 1986 Letter sparked controversy and outrage, so it is appropriate to quote it in full: “In the discussion which followed the 1975 Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder”. I shall limit my discussion to this paragraph 2 and mainly to the second sentence.

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2332) sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of body and soul. Sexuality is therefore a fundamental component of one’s being. Bear in mind too that the 1975 Declaration states that, for some, their homosexuality is permanent and innate.

Cardinal Ratzinger (8)suggests in the 1986 Letter that there is something specific about the sexuality of gay and lesbian persons, something that, in his opinion, is ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil. Within the context of the Church’s teaching on sexuality, his statement seems to indicate that, in his opinion, gay and lesbian persons before birth have implanted within them some extraordinary disadvantage that leads them away from God and towards evil.

Fr Louis Cameli in his book Catholic Teaching on Homosexuality (p 27) comments on this viewpoint: “Theologically, one would be hard pressed to justify a claim that an innocent person prior to any personal choice and for no particular reason is burdened with an inclination that leads away from God”. (9)Cameli’s statement one would be hard pressed to justify is, understandably, cautious (Cardinal Ratzinger as head of CDF was the highest ranking doctrinal authority in the Catholic Church) but it does seem to imply a judgement that Ratzinger’s viewpoint falls outside the range of Catholic theology. If that is the case, can it be true orthodox Catholic teaching?

St Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), universally acknowledged as one of the greatest of the Christian theologians, states "No spontaneous bodily or emotional inclination is evil in itself" (quoted by Margaret Farley, professor of Christian Ethics at Yale Divinity School, in her book Just Love). (10)The 1975 Declaration acknowledges that the homosexual inclination is innate; it is therefore not chosen; so it is spontaneous, bodily and emotional. Therefore, if we accept Aquinas’s view, the homosexual inclination cannot be evil. It must therefore be either neutral or good. But clearly Cardinal Ratzinger does not consider the homosexual condition or orientation to be neutral. That would be an overly benign interpretation. So it seems wise to consult further.

By coincidence, in 1986 the ordinary magisterium (teaching authority) of New Zealand Catholic bishops issued a Statement on Homosexuality. That statement contains the following sentence highlighted in the original: "Homosexual inclinations or orientation, like heterosexual inclinations, are morally neutral." In the unanimous judgement of the six New Zealand Catholic bishops, homosexual orientation is judged to be morally neutral as heterosexual orientation is morally neutral.

When magisterium meets magisterium and they disagree, perhaps that disagreement should inspire us to think for ourselves. Jesus seemed to favour such independence of thought. He had a talent for turning questions back on the questioner as for example in the story of the Good Samaritan. The lawyer’s question was "And who is my neighbour?" After the story-telling, Jesus returned the question to the lawyer: "Which of these three do you think was a neighbour?" In our present context we may be inclined to ask: "Which of these teaching authorities rings true? Makes good sense? Convinces?"

Sentence 2 of paragraph 2, Section 3 of the Letter reads as follows: “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”

In context, the intrinsic moral evil referred to can only be individual homosexual acts. The Letter does show throughout an obsessive concern with homosexual acts, homosexual activity. Since most people spend about 1 per cent of their lives engaging in sexual activity, it seems strangely unbalanced to focus so relentlessly on that 1 per cent while almost completely ignoring the other 99 per cent of their physical, emotional, spiritual lives. I suggest that the sex or lack of sex in our human relationships may well be of less genuine moral significance than are elements like respect, honesty, faithfulness, common-sense. (11)There are several other very relevant points to be made here.

First, homosexuality is a sexual attraction to a person of the same sex. It is not an attraction to an act. (12)

Second, Gerald Vann OP in his classic work Moral Dilemmas (p 30) reminds us: “Perhaps the greatest misunderstanding of morality is to think of it exclusively in terms of objective rules.” (13) Fr Sean O’Riordan affirms bluntly: “Moral theology today is not centred on laws and norms. It is centred on persons, above all on the person of Christ.” (14) Servais Pinckaers OP emphasises this view in his The Sources of Christian Ethics (p  428). Pinckaers condemns past tendencies to exclude the human element from moral judgement. He insists: “The human dimension of moral truth mustbe retrieved. Ethics cannot exist if it brackets the human subject, the person who acts.” (15)

Naturally, since morality is about matters that are of importance to human life, a moral act must imply a human actor, and the motivation and intention of the human actor are an essential part of the human act: they provide the inner meaning of the act, its moral dimension. For example, if I pierce the abdomen of another person with a sharp instrument, I may do so with the intention to harm seriously; or my intention may be to save life by removing a life-threatening tumour. Or, take the example of a man who self-stimulates genitally in order to provide semen for in-vitro fertilisation because his wife cannot conceive by usual methods of sexual intercourse. That act of self-stimulation is not masturbation: it is an act of self-giving love for his wife. I am aware that there is more to human acts than the subjective elements, but the human emotions, intentions, motivations simply cannot be excluded from consideration.

Third, same sex couples are just as capable of committed, self-giving, other-centred loving as heterosexual couples, as the Letter acknowledges. Of course, same sex couples can engage in sexual activities that are immoral as can heterosexual couples if consent, respect, honesty, commitment are lacking. But “a homosexuality that issues in faithful, tender, respectful, mutually fulfilling acts is an instrument of love, beauty and joy. As such it is moral.” (Blue Book 1, 1978 General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church.)

Margaret Farley in her book Just Love weighs up the judgements of Scripture, tradition, secular disciplines, on the subject of homosexuality and same-sex relationships and in the end finds those judgements to be inconclusive. For that reason she considers that Concrete Experience becomes a determining source on this issue. And she continues: “We do have clear and profound testimonies to the intrinsic goodness of same-sex loves and same-sex relationships. We do have strong witnesses to the role of such loves and relationships in sustaining human well-being and opening to human flourishing. This same witness extends to the contributions that individuals and partners make to families, the Church and society as a whole.” (16)

I have myself known many same-sex relationships that are long-lasting, faithful, loving and generous. I have no doubt whatsoever that these relationships are good, blessed by God, and are a sacrament of God’s presence in and to their communities and to the world.

Many people have expressed outrage that the Letter refers to homosexuality as a "disorder". The choice of word is unfortunate since almost inevitably it suggests illness, mental or emotional disorder. I certainly do not understand the term in that sense. I concede that it is a most unfortunate choice of word; it is tendentious and almost guaranteed to mislead the general public, but in its own strict context of a Letter to Bishops the term "disorder" is probably innocuous. Allow me to offer an example of "disorder" from my own personal life.

I have vision in one eye only. My one-eyedness is a disorder, a privation of the “perfection” of being two-eyed. Obviously this disorder is not chosen; and the state of being one-eyed is not sinful in any way whatsoever. Indeed, to reject my one-eyedness, to allow it to embitter my outlook on life, could well become sinful. But in fact for me it has proved to be an advantage. As a result of being one-eyed, I have become a more attentive person than I might otherwise have been. I am attentive to people so I am aware of their physical presence. I tend to stare (to compensate), which often proves uncomfortable for others! I am also very conscious of the contours of objects. Landscapes remain in my mind forever.

Since I enjoy 20/20 vision and my one-eyedness does not disadvantage me, I never speak of it. Apart from my immediate family and optometrist, very few will be aware of it. But (and this is a large "but") if I were living in Ancient Israel or in Jesus’s days, my lack of physical “perfection” would automatically become a ritual blemish as their rituals required unblemished participants. Even the lambs and goats of sacrifice had to be "unblemished". And since ritual and sacrifice were essential to maintaining the "rightness" and "purity" of the whole people, the ritual blemish would in turn become a moral defect. And people would ask as in John 9:2: "Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" (17)

What we see at work here is a process of cultural-religious exclusion, common in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and also in Jesus’s day. That type of exclusion is still around, quite common. It may even lurk somewhere behind that famous Sentence 2 of Paragraph 2, Section 3 of the 1986 Letter. So it is important to remember that Jesus was radically inclusive. (18)Christian Churches and Christian communities if they are to be faithful to the example and ethos of Jesus must be radically inclusive too. Those who exclude, exclude themselves.

Of course, the Catholic Church is not a perfect society: the Church is made up of human beings and the tendency to make mistakes is characteristic of all humans. Jesus was fully human. He, too, learned by trial and error as we all do in the learning process. Luke in his Gospel reminds us that “he grew in wisdom” (Luke 2:52). The Church, too, needs to grow in wisdom. Fortunately, voices are being raised within local Churches urging a new vision and understanding of homosexuality. Let us listen to what our local Churches are saying!

In June 2014, Bishop Patrick Dunn of Auckland made front-page headlines in the NZ Catholic appealing for greater support for gay and lesbian Catholics. In this front-page article and elsewhere he has made it very clear that the task of the Church is not to judge but to affirm and to welcome.

At the 2014 Synod in Rome Cardinal John Dew archbishop of Wellington challenged the Church to speak a language of hope that encourages and empowers. He specifically referred to phrasing used to describe same-sex relationships, such as intrinsically evil and irregular situations, pointing out that such negative terms block people from seeing God in their lives.

Bishop Charles Drennan of Palmerston North, in his intervention at the 2015 Roman Synod on Family, urged that “the Church’s theologians engage seriously with the voices of science that say sexual orientation is neither a personal choice nor a matter of social conditioning but rests in the deepest ontological make-up of the individual, and thus sexual orientation forms part of the mystery of human nature which is good.”

It is surely significant that the (Latin) title and the text of the 1986 Vatican CDF Letter refer to homosexuality as a "problem". A problem is like a mathematical puzzle for which a solution does, of course, exist. All one has to do is find the solution, apply it; and then one can walk away and forget all about it. Bishop Drennan, by contrast, speaks of sexual orientation as “part of the mystery of human nature which is good”. People cannot walk away from their human nature; they must embrace it and be embraced by it, and live it lovingly every day of their lives. And yes, in genuine love there is always some struggle and pain, but it is precisely that glorious and painful struggle to be their authentic sexual selves that all human beings have an absolute right to. And all means all: gay, straight, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer and everyone else.

At the 2014 and 2015 Roman Synods, Cardinal Dew and Bishop Drennan were speaking as the elected representatives of the New Zealand Catholic bishops. They were therefore presenting the views of the Catholic bishops of Aotearoa New Zealand. In accordance with the Decree on Bishops Christus Dominus 1965, should not our bishops’ views prevail in Aotearoa New Zealand?

Regardless of what the Churches say, this life as we have received it is our treasure and our responsibility. Our human behaviour should be guided by our moral sense, our sense of the importance and value of our human life and our unique and special giftedness. As Timothy Radcliffe OP points out in his book What is the Point of Being a Christian? (p 37), adult men and women have to make their own decisions within the range of what for them is possible. Radcliffe’s view makes absolute good sense: “The Church will only be a cradle of gospel freedom if we are seen to stand beside people supporting them as they make moral decisions within the range of what is possible, rather than making decisions for them. We cherish the freedom to decide our moral values. This implies the rejection of excessive interference by any institutions whether the Church or the State.” (19)

St Augustine says that of the three theological virtues, faith, hope and love, hope is the greatest. Faith tells us that God is, and love tells us that God is good, but hope tells us that God is on our side and God will achieve his will in us and in our lives, one way or another. And hope has two lovely daughters: anger and courage.

Gay and lesbian Catholics may feel genuine anger that past teachings of our Church have vilified and degraded homosexuality. But if we cling to our anger it will corrode every joy that life offers. Courage by contrast impels us forward to claim and enjoy our present. Courage generates loyalty to the truth of our own story. Courage gives us heart to weather the storms and struggles that are characteristic of all human living.

And the Church has changed, so it would be foolish to judge it solely on the basis of its past negative statements. (20)Pope Francis has famously questioned: "Who am I to judge gay persons?"  His favourite words seem to be "every person": "Every person, regardless of sexual orientation, must be respected ... Every human being is the object of God’s infinite tenderness. Every person is immensely holy and deserves our love."

Our Catholic bishops also had the courage of [KM1] [KM2] their convictions when in 1986 they declared that homosexual orientation and heterosexual orientation enjoy the same morally neutral status. At the 2015 Roman Synod, Bishop Drennan of Palmerston North, addressing bishops from every Catholic diocese in the world, presented the sound, rational viewpoint that “sexual orientation is part of the mystery of human nature which is good.” The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium) 1964 points out that the bishops are the successors of the apostles with a mandate from Christ himself so that “whoever listens to them listens to Christ.”

I understand that "Listen!" is the very first commandment. (See Deuteronomy 6:4-9) It may well be the most important one. And of course this commandment is binding on bishops too.

Many questions remain; herewith two or three…

Catholic Church teaching imposes mandatory life-long celibacy and chastity for all homosexual persons. Yet Church documents reiterate that celibacy is a "precious gift of God" (Optatam Totius,10); "a glorious gift" (Presbyterorum Ordinis 16): "a special spiritual gift" (Sacerdotalis Caelibatus 5); but a gift not given to everyone (Sacer Cael 60–72). No doubt some gay men and lesbian women do receive this gift. Many do not. Can the Catholic Church with good conscience demand celibacy of all gays and lesbians?

Teilhard de Chardin was reminding us 60 years ago that the core energy of the universe is love, connectedness. Teilhard speaks of that universal psychic energy which is constantly exercising its attraction on every aspect of our consciousness, luring us into loving. (21) Our sexual longings are therefore our human nature’s response to that compelling attraction. So sexual desire is love trying to happen. (22)Or we might say: Our sexual desire is an echo of God’s passionate desire for us. And who are we to question the gift of love that the universe or God chooses to offer us? And since the universe is a kaleidoscope of diversity, is it likely that for humans there can be only one form of loving, the heterosexual form?

Notes and Bibliography.

1. James McManus, The "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics". Clergy Review June 1976 No 6 233.
2. ibid 232.
3. ibid 234.
4. James B. Nelson, "Homosexuality. An Issue for the Church" in David K. Clark and Robert V. Rakestraw (eds.) Readings in Christian Ethics, Vol 2. Michigan: Grand Rapids: Baker Academic 1996 pp 183-193.
5. Robin Scroggs, The New Testament and Homosexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress 1983 p 127.

1. Nelson, p 183.
2. Diarmuid O’Murchu, Inclusivity – A Gospel Mandate. N.Y. Orbis 2015 p 108.
3. Although I refer to Cardinal Ratzinger as the person responsible for the Letter, it is very probable that he did not write it. However, the Letter was “adopted in an ordinary session of the CDF; it bears the name of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect (or Head) of the CDF in 1986; so we can assume that the opinions and teachings expressed in the Letter were his, or at least met with his full approval.
4. Fr Louis Cameli, Catholic Teaching on Homosexuality. Indiana: Ave Maria Press 2012 pp 27–30.
5. Margaret A. Farley, Just Love. New York:Continuum 2006 p 44.
6. ibid  271–296.
7. Gareth Moore OP, A Question of Truth. London: Continuum 2003 P 44.
8. Gerald Vann OP, Moral Dilemmas. London: Collins 1965 p 30.
9. O’Riordan, p 234.
10. Servais Pinckaers OP, The Sources of Christian Ethics. Washington: Catholic University of America 1995 p 428.
11. Farley, p 287.
12. James Alison, Faith Beyond Resentment. London: DLT 2001 pp 3-26.
13. O’Murchu, pp 83-100.
14. Timothy Radcliffe OP, What is the Point of Being a Christian?London: Burns and Oates 2005 p 37.
15. Bear in mind that the Vatican is the administrative centre of the Catholic Church — as the Beehive is the administrative centre of New Zealand. Nobody would equate the Beehive with the whole country of New Zealand. Likewise it would be an unfortunate error to equate the Vatican with the Catholic Church worldwide. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) is only one of the many Congregations or Departments which make up the Vatican. Inevitably the Prefect (head) of each department imposes his mindset within his area of responsibility. CDF statements should be seen within that perspective. And the value of these statements may lie in the debate they provoke as much as in the documents themselves. In August 1968, in a Letter to the Congress of German Catholics Pope Paul VI expressed the hope that “the lively debate aroused by our encyclical (Humanae Vitae) may lead to a better knowledge of God’s will”. It is noteworthy that Pope Paul saw the lively debate about the encyclical (and not the encyclical itself) as the channel for the knowledge of God’s will. Presumably the Church expects adult people to be able to assess, debate and judge its teachings, and then go on to make well-reasoned decisions within the range of what, for them, is humanly possible.
16. Teilhard de Chardin SJ, On Love. London: Collins 1974 pp 7-14.
17. Sebastian Moore OSB, “The Crisis of an Ethic Without Desire" in Eugene F Rogers Jr (ed),Theology and Sexuality. Blackwell 2002 pp 157-169.

[KM2]