Should Homosexuality be a Crime?
According to LifeSiteNews, Pope Francis has issued "brief, confusing comments on the
issue of homosexuality, which seem to firmly contradict the Catholic Church’s
teaching through the centuries."
Pope Francis recently
said that homosexuality shouldn’t be considered a crime, noting that as many as
a dozen countries still enact the death penalty for homosexual acts.
“We are all children
of God and God loves us as we are and with the strength that each of us fights
for our dignity. Being homosexual isn’t a crime. It’s not a crime. Yes,
but it’s a sin. OK, but first let us distinguish between sin and crime. Because
as well, lack of charity to our neighbour is a sin. And you (each one), how are
you doing?”
The Holy Father began
by citing the Catechism’s call to welcome persons with homosexual tendencies.
"The number of men and women who have
deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is
objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be
accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust
discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to
fulfil God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the
sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their
condition."
He also referred to
his comments on his first trip as Pope in 2013, summarising it: "If
there is someone who is seeking God and is sincere, who am I to judge them? The
Lord is there [for this]."
The Holy Father also
noted his comments on his 2018 trip to Ireland, where he said that a
family with a son or daughter with homosexual tendencies shouldn’t reject that
child, and instead a family environment should be created that allows them to
live peacefully.
Pope
Francis rereferred to countries that legally condemn homosexuality,
some with the death penalty, saying:
“I think it is
unjust. I don’t think we should discriminate against anyone. Even more so,
moving on from the problem of homosexuality, let’s go to another problem. The
greatest assassin, the greatest sinner – we also shouldn’t discriminate against
them. Every man and every woman has to have a window in their lives where they
can place their hope, and where they can see the dignity of God. And to be
homosexual isn’t a crime. It’s a human condition."
He also added: “Bishops in particular need to undergo a process of
change to recognize the dignity of everyone. These bishops have to have a
process of conversion,” Francis
declared, calling for “tenderness, please, as God has for each one of us.”
So what's LifeSiteNews' issue? They
assert his comments "seem to firmly
contradict the Catholic Church’s teaching through the centuries."
Pope Francis' opinion, according to an unnamed Dominican theologian, is
in error:
“While not all sins should be made into crimes, Christian nations have generally treated homosexual activity as something harmful to society, which therefore needed to be declared illegal. Recent experience shows the wisdom of this, since the repeal of laws against such activity has led everywhere to a general confusion and decline of sexual morality, and even to the scarcely credible situation of people being uncertain about the nature of men and women.”
The article asserts Pope Francis's statements conflict with key points of Catholic teaching. They cite the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 1975 document, Persona Humana, that says: “There can be no true promotion of man’s dignity unless the essential order of his nature is respected.” Also Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger 1986 instructions to bishops on the pastoral care of homosexual persons to ensure they, and any “pastoral programme” in the diocese, are “clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral.”
The CDF document adds:
"Such
an authentic pastoral approach would “assist homosexual persons at all levels
of the spiritual life: through the sacraments, and in particular through the
frequent and sincere use of the sacrament of Reconciliation, through prayer,
witness, counsel and individual care.
But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church’s teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church’s position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.
Therefore special
concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this
condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation
in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."
LifeSiteNews cites saints and Fathers of the Church as
being explicit in their call for public action to be taken against acts of
homosexuality, no matter whether the acts themselves were private.
In his Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas writes that
acts of homosexuality are among the most weighty, and thus the worst kind of
all the sins of lust. Styling it the “unnatural vice,” St.
Thomas writes:
"Those foul offenses that are against nature should be everywhere
and at all times detested and punished, such as were those of the people of
Sodom, which should all nations commit, they should all stand guilty of the
same crime, by the law of God which hath not so made men that they should so
abuse one another. For even that very intercourse which should be between God
and us is violated, when that same nature, of which He is the Author, is
polluted by the perversity of lust."
St. Peter Damian, in his Liber Gomorrhianus addressed
to Pope Leo IX, advocate for public punishment for acts of homosexuality. He
wrote that, regarding clerics, any monk who practices such acts “should
be removed in all ways from his office.”
The saint continues:
"Just as Saint Basil establishes that those who incur sins… should
be subjected not only to a hard penance but a public one, and Pope Siricius
prohibits penitents from entering clerical orders, one can clearly deduce that
he who corrupts himself with a man through the ignominious squalor of a filthy
union does not deserve to exercise ecclesiastical functions, since those who
were formerly given to vices… become unfit to administer the Sacraments."
St. Peter Damian drew from the Early Church Father St. Basil of
Caesarea, who also outlined retributions for homosexual acts. St. Basil
stipulated that:
"Any cleric or monk who abused adolescents or children
or is caught kissing or committing some turpitude, let him be whipped in
public, deprived of his crown [the tonsure] and, after having his head shaved,
let his face be covered with spittle; and bound in iron chains, condemned to
six months in prison, reduced to eating rye bread once a day in the evening
three times per week. After these six months living in a separate cell under
the custody of a wise elder with great spiritual experience, let him be
subjected to prayers, vigils and manual work, always under the guard of two
spiritual brothers, without being allowed to have any relationship… with young people."
So, should homosexuality be a crime once again?
A state which has to legislate morality is already lost.
ReplyDeleteThe Fathers quoted here are condemning sexual sin among the clergy. Aquinas is writing to Christians living in a Christian culture, not the secular state.
'For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside [the Church]? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”'
Agreed but Pope Francis is calling on those in the Church to reach out to all sinners, not exclude them, live out and teach the Gospel, and pastorally accompany them. This is where it gets tricky with some Catholic priests and bishops.
DeleteYes, but question was 'should homosexuality be a crime once again', which it shouldn't be.
DeleteReaching out and living with sinners, on the other hand, is the Church's entire reason for being. Exclude sinners, and you have empty buildings.
What causes people concern about Francis is not the reaching out to sinners, it's the worry that he's accepting the sin. When you tell seminarians to absolve even those who are unrepentant, that's a problem.
DeleteNo it's more than a problem it is grave sin which all Catholics understand. Your sins are not absolved if you do not have the intention of not reoffending. Even the seminarians would know this is not allowed. I don't believe that Pope Francis would tell seminarians to absolve sins if the sinner has no intention of not reoffending. Catholic teaching is immutable....you cannot slip and slide around it.....we are all taught that from the word go....no one not even the Pope is exempt....Surely all Catholics know that !
DeleteThe above comment is from Cressida.If the Pope proclaimed publicly that seminarians could forgive practising homosexuals when they had no intention of giving up their life style then he would be proclaiming to the world that he the Pope is a heretic....just can't happen !
Delete@Bell
DeleteDo you have a source for what he actually said?
Of course - but then we get this which is what Jack was referring to.
ReplyDeleteI think that Pope Francis' closeness with, and failure to rein in, James Martin is unwise. They both seem to me to skate very close to the limits of doctrine, without explicitly crossing it.
DeleteBut this article is disingenuous. For example:
Francis added a further escape clause to his restating of Church teaching, noting, "This is to speak of 'the matter' of sin, but we know well that Catholic morality not only takes into consideration the matter but also evaluates freedom and intention; and this, for every kind of sin."
It's well established in Catholic theology that 'Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent' (CCC 1857). There are clearly going to be occasions when addiction, habituation or whatever else mitigate or absolve the gravity of any sexual sin. If someone is raised in a society and culture that normalises certain behaviour (cohabiting, for example), it's no use just suddenly screaming at them that they're sinning when they don't know they are, and don't know any better. This isn't an escape clause, it's traditional Catholic teaching. CM, on the other hand, seem to believe that anything short of Catholic sharia is a capitulation to sin and report everything accordingly. I'm disappointed to see that Gavin A has added his words to this piece.
Most of CM articles are "disingenuous", putting the worse possible spin on Pope Francis' words. It's interesting Pope Francis took the trouble to write to James Martin. Gavin is genuinely troubled by the ambiguity in Pope Francis' words and actions. However, he can't possibly know what was intended by Pope Francis' letter to Martin, i.e., that he intended to the legitimise homoerotic love. He is correct though that potentially "the pope's 'elimination of fault' by 'circumstances' offers a principle of moral discernment without boundaries or limits," unless it is "carefully qualified."
DeleteWhere CM are wrong is that Pope Francis has said homosexual acts are not sinful when they achieve qualitative virtues, like tenderness, permanence, fidelity, therapeutic outcomes, etc.
I don't really understand why one of the most controversial and high profile priests seems to have a direct line to the Vatican. Especially as he seems to publicly present every contact with the Pope as an agreement with his views.
Delete'Troubled by the ambiguity' seems to be the overarching theme of this papacy, unfortunately.
He is correct though that potentially "the pope's 'elimination of fault' by 'circumstances' offers a principle of moral discernment without boundaries or limits," unless it is "carefully qualified."
Isn't this true of most things, though? If I deliberately sin, thinking I can 'exploit loopholes', then I'm clearly sinning with awareness and intent. Just as I would be if I deliberately sinned knowing I can go to confession and have it written off. Or if I intentionally commit venial sin because I know that the Eucharist absolves it.
From.Cressida:
DeleteReferring to your comment above about Catholics no knowing they are doing anything wrong by cohabiting being homosexual having sex when not married is not true. If you have had a Catholic education you know that these are all considered to be sins regardless if they are the societal norm.There are no loopholes . You may find this hard to believe but if you really understand Catholicism you don't go looking for loopholes...it is pointless....As a child you are taught you may be able to lie to everyone but you can never lie to God, so no use pretending and lying to yourself. This is a very useful concept....As for venial sins... we are human so we all have them to a greater or lesser degree BUT our conscience should make us unhappy about committing them ...things like being bad tempered, swearing , losing control and loads of other misdemeanours. Catholicism if understood is a very sensible reasonable way to live....There are far to many misunderstandings by other faiths and within the faith there are those who are trying to undermine the precepts BUT no Catholic is going to pay attention to it because there are no secrets We all know the way it works. It is simple and just
Jack, I share some of your doubts about Church Militant, but I have to point out that outfits like that garner support because many Catholics no longer feel like the Church has their back, and that's down to Rousseau priests like Martin. Stamping down on his kind would go a long way to reassuing the laity that supernatural faith is still a thing among the hierarchy.
DeleteThat's my point. Anyone who's looking for an 'escape clause' isn't practicing their faith anyway, because you have to be aware of your sin to attempt to escape it. If I don't believe I'm sinning, I don't require a get out clause.
DeleteBut the Catechism is also quite clear that there are circumstances in which the gravity of a sin is reduced, and it's disingenuous for Church Militant to be claiming otherwise. The Pope is simply repeating what the Catechism says, in this instance.
@lain,
DeleteRegarding the source of Francis's remarks on absolution. The link below is one of many sources all saying the same thing. Francis never says such things on the formal record, but the Vatican is not denying he said what is being reported. If he WERE to deny it, I would not call him a liar, but he's NOT denying it, at least not so far.
https://catholicherald.co.uk/pope-francis-rants-against-delinquent-priests-who-withhold-absolution-2/
@Bell
DeleteThank you for the link. That is indeed concerning (interesting that it's yet another 'off the cuff' moment, which I presume wasn't recorded and so can't be scrutinised). It's true that clerics shouldn't be legalistic about confession, nor should they be stingy in dispensing absolution; but to suggest that no sign of contrition or desire to amend one's life is necessary at all is quite worrying, not to mention being contrary to the entire gospel message. One may as well dispense with individual confession completely in that case, if it's simply a 'rubber stamp'.
The need for sorrowful repentance and the desire not to sin again, is a prerequisite condition on the part of the sinner for obtaining God’s merciful pardon. The Catechism declares: “Among the penitent’s acts contrition occupies first place. Contrition is ‘sorrow of the soul and detestation for the sin committed, together with the resolution not to sin again’”.
DeleteCanon Law states that for penitents to receive “the saving remedy of the sacrament of penance, they must be so disposed that, repudiating the sins they have committed and having the purpose of amending their lives, they turn back to God.”
Pope Francis’s impromptu declaration that absolution should be given even to those who are unrepentant, if reported accurately, is contrary to the Gospel and Church’s living Apostolic tradition.
It also contradicts this formal address given in March 2022. He has sharp words for confessors but did say, “Forgiveness is a ‘right’ in the sense that God, in the Paschal Mystery of Christ, has given it in a total and irreversible way to every person willing to accept it, with a humble and repentant heart.”
In earlier centuries, when the seven deadly sins were the general reference point in Catholic preaching rather than the ten commandments, I believe lust ranked pretty low on the list. I have read that pride (superbia) was always regarded as the worst of the seven, closely followed by envy and wrath. Then came acedia (sloth) in the middle, with the other three ranking fifth, sixth and seventh, though not always in the same order: gluttony, lust, and avaritia, avarice or acquisitiveness.
ReplyDeleteIt was Pope Gregory I who revised the list in the 6th century and placed pride firsy.
Delete"For pride is the root of all evil, of which it is said, as Scripture bears witness; Pride is the beginning of all sin. But seven principal vices, as its first progeny, spring doubtless from this poisonous root, namely, vain glory, envy, anger, melancholy, avarice, gluttony, lust." He wasn't ranking them in seriousness.
Hitherto, there were various lists
Most of the seven deadly sins are defined by Dante Alighieri (c. 1264–1321) as perverse or corrupt versions of love; lust, gluttony, and greed are all excessive or disordered love of good things; and wrath, envy, and pride are perverted love directed toward others' harm. The sole exception is sloth, which is a deficiency of love. The seven deadly sins are seven ways to eternal death.
Pride is thought to be the father and promoter of all the other sins.
Oddly for a trad, I never had much of a problem with homosexuals. My basic attitude was to shrug my shoulders and say, "whatever". They knew what was expected, and like the rest of us, if they didn't toe the line, they'd answer for it to God eventually. So long as it didn't get in my face, it was their funeral. When it got in my face was with gay marriage. Like the whole trans thing, it was the forcing of a lie into my mouth. The 1967 legislation probably got it about right. Let them have at it if they want, but don't let's try to put it on the same level as marriage.
ReplyDeleteIn Jack's opinion, permitting the positive promotion of homosexuality and its normalisation is where the trouble started.
DeleteSection 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, prohibited the "promotion of homosexuality" by local authorities. It was in effect from 1988 to 2000 in Scotland and from 1988 to 2003 in England and Wales. It meant organisations such as lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender student support groups to close, limit their activities or self-censor.
Even apart from gay marriage, there's too much campaigning about the issue. Why do they feel they need people's approval for everything they do? It has never occurred to me to ask the "LGBT community" to give its approval for the things I want to do. I don't care whether they approve or not. Why should they care whether I approve or disapprove of the things they want to do?
ReplyDeleteNatural law. People know instinctively when something is wrong, and the classic reaction -- when you want to keep doing it anyway -- is to seek the approval of everyone else. But of course, no matter how much "affirmation" is received, it'll never be enough, hence the ceaseless "campaigning".
DeleteIf homosexuality, why not hetrosexual sex outside marriage? Or masterbation? Or even simply lusting after another man's wife? Sexual ethics is best kept outside of the legislature. Pope Francis is correct?
ReplyDeleteI don't follow this obsession with trying to second guess what he is actually meaning? Until proven otherwise, I'd leave that as simple guess work.