Does the Catholic Church discriminate against homosexuals?

Issue outline by J M McInerney

What they said ...

`We consider our sexuality a God-given gift, and we don't think it should affect our ability to take Communion'
Spokesperson for Acceptance, the national advocacy group for gay Catholics

`Nobody is perfect. All Christians are sinners and in need of repentance'
Dr George Pell, Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne

On November 2, 1997, three men who had publicly declared their homosexuality were refused Holy Communion by the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, Dr George Pell. The three men were attending mass at St Patrick's Cathedral and were in the company of a priest who had also declared his homosexual orientation.
This was the second attempt in a week the men had made to take Holy Communion while at the same time stating they were gay. The public stance of the men and Dr Pell's statement that unrepentant, practising homosexuals are unable to receive Holy Communion has attracted significant public attention.

Background
The first intimation of this dispute came when it was reported that a Melbourne man, Mr Nicholas Holloway, would wear a rainbow sash, symbolising his homosexuality, to the 100th anniversary mass at St Patrick's Cathedral, on Monday, October 27, 1997.
Mr Holloway also indicated that he would present himself for Holy Communion while wearing the sash.
Mr Holloway wrote to Pope John Paul indicating his intentions and sent a copy of the letter to Melbourne's Archbishop, Dr George Pell.
Dr Pell became Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne last year and brought with him a reputation as a man of strong but conservative opinion. There was considerable potential for confrontation due to the public nature of Mr Holloway's gesture and the fact that Cardinal O'Connor, the Archbishop of New York, another forceful and conservative church leader, had been invited to attend the mass to celebrate St Patrick's centenary.
Mr Holloway had previously been refused Communion at London's Westminster Cathedral, after writing a letter to Cardinal Basil Hume, stating he was a practising homosexual and wanted to be recognised as a church member.
On October 27, Mr Holloway was joined by Mr David Barker, Mr Michael Kelly and Father Julian Ahern. All four men wore sashes to declare their homosexual and sought Holy Communion. Only Michael Kelly was refused and this only after he openly stated that he was homosexual to the priest giving Communion. The other three appear to have been given Holy Communion because the priest giving the sacrament did not recognise the significance of the sashes they were wearing.
On November 2, 1997, Mr Michael Kelly, Mr Nicholas Holloway and Mr David Barker were refused Holy Communion by Archbishop Pell when they again attended mass at St Patrick's Cathedral. The men queued for Communion but were offered only a blessing . Father Ahern was present but did not attempt to receive Communion.
There are a significant number of Internet sites useful for a consideration of this issue.
In March, 1997, Nicholas Holloway wrote a letter reviewing his life and especially the effect on him of his Catholicism and his homosexuality. The letter concludes as an appeal for homosexuality to be accepted within the Catholic Church and for practising homosexuals to be allowed Communion. (This letter can be found on the Internet by clicking on this line).
There is a large Canadian site established by Dignity Canada Dignite, a support organisation for gay and lesbian Catholics. Though the organisation is critical of the official stance of the Catholic Church on homosexuality it is a good source of Vatican statements dealing with this issue. It includes a Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This letter was written in 1986. It is an important document, indicating the recommended treatment of homosexuals within the Catholic Church.
There is also the home page of another support group for homosexual Catholics, Courage. This group appears to support the official position of the Catholic Church on homosexuality. The Cathechism of the Catholic Church on Homosexuality is reproduced on this site.
Finally a further clarification of the position of the Catholic Church on homosexuality can be found in Cardinal Basil Hume's Note on Church Teaching Concerning Homosexual People.

Arguments suggesting that the Catholic Church does not discriminate against homosexuals
The principal argument offered by representatives of the Catholic Church to demonstrate that it does not discriminate against homosexuals is that it expects the same behaviour of those with a homosexual orientation as it does of heterosexuals.
According to this line of argument, sexuality exists so that human life can continue and to consolidate the union between a married couple. Such a stance sees sexual expression as legitimate only within the context of a Catholic marriage and holds that the couple should only use their sexuality to create children and to strengthen the bond between them.
It is primarily on this basis that Holy Communion would be denied to any practising homosexual who was not trying to stop living as a homosexual.
The religious affairs writer for The Australian, James Murray, has stated the Catholic Church's objection to homosexuality, referring to church law which sees homosexual acts as `contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life.'
It has been claimed that this is not a discriminatory position, however, as Holy Communion would also be denied to any heterosexual person who engaged in sexual activity either before marriage or outside his or her marriage. It is argued that the Catholic Church is as opposed to pre-marital sex, to adultery or marital infidelity and to masturbation as it is to homosexuality.
In support of this position, Dr Pell has stated, `If ... a married person was openly and publicly living in adultery, then that person would not be entitled to receive Holy Communion.'
According to this line of argument the Catholic Church cannot be regarded as practising discrimination because it is not singling out a particular group of people for unfair or unjust treatment. Rather, supporters of the traditional Catholic position maintain, it has a standard of behaviour that it expects to be adhered to by homosexual and heterosexual alike and those who behave otherwise have chosen to deny themselves access to the sacrament of Holy Communion.
Dr Pell has stated, `When people publicly reject the church's teaching on any important matter, they effectively make it impossible for them to receive Holy Communion.'
The same position has been stated by the Vicar-General of Melbourne, Monsignor Denis Hart. `When people publicly and flagrantly reject the church's teaching on any matter, they take a position which makes it impossible for them to receive Holy Communion. It is not the church which rejects them but it is they who reject the church.'
There are, however, those who have suggested that the emphasis on a public rejection of the teachings of the Catholic Church indicates hypocrisy on the part of Catholics who would deny Holy Communion to practising homosexuals, because, they argue, if a person's sexual conduct were kept private, it would then be allowable for that person to receive Holy Communion.
Those who defend the traditional position of the Catholic Church argue that this is not so. They claim that without knowing whether a person were a practising homosexual or not it would be impossible to deny them Communion on these grounds, however, if someone were to receive Communion while actively homosexual they would have committed a double offence - their active homosexuality plus receiving Holy Communion while not in a state of grace.
Those who defend the traditional position of the catholic Church argue that a public declaration that a person is a practising homosexual is significant because it indicates that that person does not see his or her sexual conduct as wrong and thus, presumably, has no intention of refraining from it.
A public statement of one's homosexuality is seen as confirmation that the person does not regret his or her sexual behaviour and will not alter it. This is claimed to be the reason why anyone making such a public statement is likely to be denied Holy Communion.
Another reason that the Catholic Church rejects the suggestion that it discriminates against homosexuals is that its condemnation is directed toward homosexual behaviour, not toward those who practise it. It is claimed that the church offers love and acceptance to individuals but does not accept their sexual behaviour.
According to this line of argument, the Catholic Church recognises that a person's sexual orientation may well be outside his or her control and that it is something for which the person should not be condemned.
When asked by The Herald Sun if practising homosexuals could be good Catholics, Dr Pell replied, yes, apparently meaning that they would need to acknowledge that their homosexual practices were sinful and attempt to refrain from them.
`Nobody is perfect,' Dr Pell said. `All Christians are sinners and in need of repentance. When Christ spoke to the woman accused of adultery, he did not say "Keep up the good work." He urged her, "Sin no more."
Catholic teaching requires us to treat homosexuals with respect, compassion and sensitivity, which we at all times strive to do.'
In addition to `respect, compassion and sensitivity', Paul Gray, writing for The Herald Sun notes that the Catholic catechism also requires that `Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.'
Thus, the Catholic Church maintains that it offers compassion and respect to homosexuals even should they not always be able to deny their sexual inclinations. However, the traditional Catholic position requires that someone with a homosexual orientation attempt to refrain form homosexual activity.
It is claimed that what is required of the homosexual person is the same as is required of any other member of the Catholic Church, that he or she attempts to follow the rulings of the church. It is also claimed that if there are periods of failure to live by these standards, the person, whether heterosexual or homosexual, should then express repentance and try again to live according to the requirements of the Catholic Church.

Arguments suggesting that the Catholic Church does discriminate against homosexuals
One of the first arguments offered in support of the claim that the Catholic Church discriminates against homosexuals is that homosexuals are unable to express their sexual orientation and at the same time adhere to the rulings of the church. Homosexuals claim that this means that to avoid sin a homosexual has to avoid sexual activity.
It has been noted that this is a much harder demand to meet than that imposed on heterosexuals. This position was paraphrased by James Murray, the religious writer for The Australian, who has written, `Contemporary gay anger with the church is about ... what appears to be a disproportionate demand for personal self-sacrifice by homosexuals.'
The same position has been put by American theologian and educator, Paul Giurlanda, `What other boys and girls are told, traditionally, is to "wait until marriage". What these teenagers [with a homosexual orientation] must be told is "wait until death".'
According to this line of argument, the Catholic Church regards the expression of heterosexual love by a married couple as legitimate when it is to enhance their relationship and to produce children. However, there is no expression of homosexual love which is regarded as legitimate.
It has been suggested that this is fundamentally unjust as many homosexuals are, it is claimed, born with their sexual orientation. It is claimed by some experts that homosexuality is not something a person chooses nor is it something over which, at a later stage of their lives, they can exercise control.
According to this line of argument it is unjust to regard as a failing or a disorder a sexual orientation which many people appear to be born with. Those who hold this view maintain that to do this is similar to condemning people because of their skin colour or the nationality into which they were born.
It has also been suggested that the Church is far more rigorous in its condemnation of homosexuality than it is of many other behaviours that it considers immoral.
According to many homosexuals, the basis of discrimination is that homosexuality is regarded by the Catholic Church as wrong.
A spokesperson for Acceptance, the national advocacy group for gay Catholics, has stated, `We consider our sexuality a God-given gift, and we don't think it should affect our ability to take Communion.'
Thus there are homosexual Catholics who regard their sexuality as a cause for gratitude rather than shame. Those who hold this view see homosexuality as something given them by God and not a fault or a `disorder' they should seek either to overcome or not to express.
There are also those who maintain that it is not possible to condemn homosexuality without also condemning each individual homosexual. According to this line of argument, the traditional Catholic position that homosexuality is unacceptable but that individuals with a homosexual orientation are acceptable is not sustainable.
Critics of the traditional Catholic position maintain that it is not possible to reject an individual's sexuality without also rejecting a large amount of what makes them the person they are.
The American theologian, Paul Giurlanda, has claimed, `... if the church's teaching is internalised what kind of life can [a homosexual youth] ... look forward to? This youth must recognise that every sexual impulse he or she will have is dangerous and evil.'
Michael Kelly, a former Catholic university chaplain and one of the three gay men refused Holy Communion on November 2, 1997, has suggested that the type of life to which homosexuals would be condemned by the traditional view within the Catholic Church would be a very damaging one.
`A life lived in this spirit would hardly be likely to flower into peace, love and joy. Despair, isolation and self-hatred would be more like it,' Michael Kelly has argued.
There are also those who claim to essentially endorse the position of the catholic Church regarding homosexuality and who still maintain that homosexuals are not treated with the `compassion and respect' which the church formally claims.
Reverend Julian P. Ahern, a Catholic priest who has declared his homosexual orientation and supported other homosexuals seeking to be given communion has stated that while he supports the church's teaching on homosexuality he seeks `a listening to gay men and women that expresses the attitude of Jesus' heart.'
Reverend Ahern has further said, `It really is that we wish the community, including the hierarchy, would listen to the experience of being gay or lesbian by acknowledging that these people are present joyously among us.'
Finally, it is claimed by some that Archbishop Pell has behaved unjustly because he has refused Holy Communion to men who had publicly declared their homosexuality, without knowing whether they were actively practising their homosexuality.

Further implications
The full import of the current debate is not clear. It is not certain whether those who sought to receive Holy Communion while publicly declaring their homosexuality were seeking to challenge the rulings of the Catholic Church or whether they were, as some have claimed, simply seeking dialogue on the issue and a more open acknowledgement of the position of homosexuals within the Catholic Church.
Michael Kelly, one of the homosexual men involved, has outlined what he claims are his immediate objectives.
`First, the hierarchy should give a guarantee that all priests, religious, teachers and church workers can publicly reveal their sexual orientation without being sacked, suspended or having their careers derailed ...
Second, an official diocesan ministry must be set up to provide education in the church and pastoral care for gay Catholics and their families ...
Third, the church should set up an official Year of Listening. Gay and lesbian people have never been listened to; we must be invited to share the truth of our experience.'
It does not seem likely that in the current atmosphere, Michael Kelly will have his objectives meet. Currently there appears to be little dialogue and a fair degree of confrontation, if not hostility, between the Catholic hierarchy in Melbourne and those gay Catholics who declared their homosexuality and then sought Holy Communion.
Archbishop Pell appears to believe that their purpose was to attract publicity to their cause. `Here, a difficulty is being created not by the teaching of the church, but by the calculated orchestration of dissenting individuals with a flare for publicity.'
Dr Pell has been credited with seeking to re-establish a more conservative, orthodox Catholicism in the Melbourne archdiocese and in Victoria as a whole. If this is so, it seems unlikely that he will give a sympathetic hearing to the range of suggestions made by Mr Kelly.
Neither Michael Kelly nor Father Julian Ahern has indicated that they wish to change the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church. Father Ahern has stated openly, `We haven't taken on the church's teaching on homosexuality.'
Despite this assertion, it appears possible that changing the ruling of the church may, in fact, be the ultimate intention if not of Father Ahern then of those he supports. The request Mr Kelly has made that the Catholic Church `listen' to the gays and lesbians within it may well be a request that these formerly invisible Catholics be allowed to argue their case for full acceptance within the church.
If such full acceptance is what is sought it is an objective that is very unlikely to be achieved. If the Catholic Church were to modify its position on homosexuality, this would undermine its position on pre-marital sex, on contraception and perhaps even on abortion. A change to its position on homosexuality would challenge the link between sexuality and procreation which the Catholic Church has always regarded as vital.

Sources
The Age
25/10/97 page 13 news item by Tim Pegler, `Gay man to test church'
28/10/97 page 3 news item by Tim Pegler, `Visiting cardinal backs tough line on sexuality'
29/10/97 page 2 news item by Fergus Shiel, `Clerics did not notice gays'
29/10/97 page 2 news item by Fergus Shiel, `Priest believes God will show church how to listen'
30/10/97 page 16 letter from Christopher Scanlon, `Church rejects society's outcasts'
30/10/97 page 16 letter from Mic Emslie, `God also values homosexuals'
31/10/97 page 5 news item by Fergus Shiel, `gays to test church again'
31/10/97 page 14 cartoon by Leunig
3/11/97 page 5 news item by Tim Pegler, `Pell warns gays on sacrament'
4/11/97 page 13 comment by Michael Kelly, `Selective blessings that sully the faith'
4/11/97 page 12 letter from Reverend Julian P. Ahern, `Significance of the rainbow sash'
5/11/97 page 14 letter from Dr Terry Quinn, `History offers some insights'
5/11/97 page 14 letter from Gregory Tanner, `Put off the old nature'
8/11/97 page 1(Extra) analysis by Bill Birnbauer, ` Pell's crusade'
9/11/97 page 10(Inside Story) comment by Pino Saccaro, `Closing the doors to God's house'
14/11/97 page 18 letter from Ken McIntyre, `Catholic trendies should get out'

The Australian
24/10/97 page5 news item by Terry Plane, `Priest's perspective on a closet subject'
29/10/97 page 3 news item by Richard Yallop, `Church to exclude gays and adulterers'
14/11/97 page 13 comment by James Murray, `Church gays sacrificed instead of succoured'

The Herald Sun
28/10/97 page 15 news item by John Hamilton, `No flak for cardinal'
30/10/97 page 15 news item by Cheryl Critchley, `Catholics rap Pell's methods'
1/11/97 page 4 news item by Fergus Shiel, `Archbishop will quiz gay priest'
3/11/97 page 7 news item by Scott Thompson, `Church snub to gay men'
3/11/97 page 19 comment by Paul Gray, `Conflict at the altar'
4/11/97 page 18 comments by Dr George Pell and Marcus O'Donnell, `Can practising homosexuals be good Catholics?'
4/11/97 page 20 letter from Jeff Browne, `Religion comes with rules'
5/11/97 page 20 letter, `Stay tough, Your Grace'
12/11/97 page 20 letter from Annie Cantwell-Bartl, `At odds with archbishop'

Internet
It appears that the English Board of Studies may be refining its guidelines on the use of Internet sources for CAT I.
Currently it is probably preferable for students to restrict their use of Internet sources to Part 2 of CAT I.
Please consult your teacher for direction on this matter.
When using Internet sources it is important to determine the origin of the material as this will assist you in deciding how reliable it is.
There are a significant number of Internet sites useful for a consideration of this issue.
In March, 1997, Nicholas Holloway wrote a letter reviewing his life and especially the effect on him of his Catholicism and his homosexuality. The letter concludes as an appeal for homosexuality to be accepted within the Catholic Church and for practising homosexuals to be allowed Communion. This letter can be found at http://www.swcp.com/~dignity/1100.htm
There is a large Canadian site established by Dignity Canada Dignite, a support organisation for gay and lesbian Catholics. Though the organisation is critical of the official stance of the Catholic Church on homosexuality it is a good source of Vatican statements dealing with this issue. It includes a Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This letter was written in 1986. It is an important document, indicating the recommended treatment of homosexuals within the Catholic Church. It can be found at http://www.odyssee.net/~prince/haloween.html
There is also the home page of another support group for homosexual Catholics, Courage. This group appears to support the official position of the Catholic Church on homosexuality. The Cathechism of the Catholic Church on Homosexuality is reproduced on this site. It can be found at http://www.escape.ca/~cathevan/courstat.htm
Finally a further clarification of the position of the Catholic Church on homosexuality can be found in Cardinal Basil Hume's Note on Church Teaching Concerning Homosexual People. This can be found at http://www.bway.net/~halsall/lgbh/lgbh-humegays.html