return to Faithful to the Truth
In fact, the concern of the Holy Office is not with the well-being of homosexual people, but with the defence of the Official Teaching, which is now subject to criticism. It is implied (though not stated) that arguments "inconsistent with" contemporary Official Catholic teaching are thereby false.2. Naturally, an exhaustive treatment of this complex issue cannot be attempted here, but we will focus our reflection within the distinctive context of the Catholic moral perspective. It is a perspective which finds support in the more secure findings of the natural sciences, which have their own legitimate and proper methodology and field of inquiry.
However, the Catholic moral viewpoint is founded on human reason illumined by faith and is consciously motivated by the desire to do the will of God our Father. The Church is thus in a position to learn from scientific discovery but also to transcend the horizons of science and to be confident that her more global vision does greater justice to the rich reality of the human person in his spiritual and physical dimensions, created by God and heir, by grace, to eternal life.
It is within this context, then, that it can be clearly seen that the phenomenon of homosexuality, complex as it is, and with its many consequences for society and ecclesial life, is a proper focus for the Church's pastoral care. It thus requires of her ministers attentive study, active concern and honest, theologically well balanced counsel.
To suggest that the Catholic moral perspective on homosexuality has scientific support is an amazing assertion. No corroboration is offered in this letter to back this assertion. The letter fails to explicate what the Holy Office means by "complex", and what the "many consequences" are. This letter gives no indication that the Holy Office is capable of "theologically well balanced" thought.3. Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation's "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being "intrinsically disordered", and able in no case to be approved of [see extract appended - Ed].
In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual 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 toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
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.
Note that the Holy Office here makes out that it only "took note" of something that was "commonly" held to be true, without agreeing that it was true. In fact, the 1975 Declaration simply passes over the question of what moral evaluation, if any, should be given to the homosexual orientation. The unspoken implication was that it was morally neutral, and this was the meaning generally understood. However, this "distinction" is logically untenable, and in this letter the Holy Office back-tracks on it. To an extent, this amounts to a change in teaching. Unlike the Holy Office's earlier implicit stance, this new explicit position is logically consistent. It is still wrong, however.4. An essential dimension of authentic pastoral care is the identification of causes of confusion regarding the Church's teaching. One is a new exegesis of Sacred Scripture which claims variously that Scripture has nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality, or that it somehow tacitly approves of it, or that all of its moral injunctions are so culture bound that they are no longer applicable to contemporary life. These views are gravely erroneous and call for particular attention here.
5. It is quite true that the Biblical literature owes to the different epochs in which it was written a good deal of its varied patterns of thought and expression (Dei Verbum 12). The Church today addresses the Gospel to a world which differs in many ways from ancient days. But the world in which the New Testament was written was already quite diverse from the situation in which the Sacred Scriptures of the Hebrew People had been written or compiled, for example.
What should be noticed is that, in the presence of such remarkable diversity, there is nevertheless a clear consistency within the Scriptures themselves on the moral issue of homosexual behaviour. The Church's doctrine regarding this issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony. The community of faith today, in unbroken continuity with the Jewish and Christian communities within which the ancient Scriptures were written, continues to be nourished by those same Scriptures and by the Spirit of Truth whose Word they are. It is likewise essential to recognize that the Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church's living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition.
The attempt of the Holy Office to refute the "gravely erroneous" view that homosexuality isn't condemned in Scripture is naive. The only "clear consistency" within the Scriptures with regard to homosexuality is, in fact, silence. The Church's doctrine is said to be based on the "constant Biblical testimony". Given that this testimony is non-existent, the Church's doctrine is according to this document, baseless. The "Church's living Tradition" is considerably more diverse than this letter recognizes. The "living Tradition" is not the same as the Ordinary Magisterium, still less the import of documents issued by the Holy Office, such as this letter! "The interpretation of Scripture" put forward in this letter is itself not "in substantial accord with that Tradition". In fact, it is a "facile theological argument".The Vatican Council II in Dei Verbum 10, put it this way: "It is clear, therefore, that in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls". In that spirit we wish to outline briefly the Biblical teaching here.
6. Providing a basic plan for understanding this entire discussion of homosexuality is the theology of creation we find in Genesis. God, in his infinite wisdom and love, brings into existence all of reality as a reflection of his goodness. He fashions mankind, male and female, in his own image and likeness. Human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in a striking way in their co-operation with him in the transmission of life by a mutual donation of the self to the other.
The concept of "the complementarity of the sexes" is entirely foreign to Scripture. This paragraph suggests (but carefully doesn't quite state) that gender differentiation "reflects the inner unity of the Creator". This doctrine would be heterodox, hence it is not made explicit [however, subsequent propogandists have made it explicit]. The orthodox doctrine is that mankind is created in the image of God in spite of gender differentiation, not by virtue of it! Both male and female are visualizations of the invisible God, but in reality God is neither male nor female: no more than He is triangular or yellow. The giving and receiving that may be seen as constitutive of the Trinity is that between the Father and the Son: both accounted as male. From this "mutual donation of the self" arises Holy Spirit: generally accounted as either neuter or female.In Genesis 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each other. The human body retains its "spousal significance" but this is now clouded by sin. Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men [actually the inhabitants, not just the men] of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.
Note we have an implicit statement of the orthodox doctrine, where each individual is an image of God, irrespective of their gender. Eve was created to relieve Adam's loneliness [Gen 3:18], to be a helper and companion worthy of himAgainst the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in 1Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.[Gen 3:20,23]. Not primarily a mate for the purpose of procreation.The phrase "covenantal character" is out of place. The Fall anticeded all explicit covenants. The idea of covenant is introduced to try to insinuate that Adam and Eve were recognizably married, and so that marriage existed before the Fall. This is the meaning of the body being said to have retained "its spousal significance": that the human body was positively constituted for heterogender marriage.
It is improper to compare, even implicitly, the relationship between Adam and Eve and between the two of them and God. Adam and Eve were not in an erotic threesome with God! God was not the spouse of either! The first humans are more like God's infant children. They are called to become His friends. The only form of relationship that might be construed as existing before the fall was that of friendship. Of course, friendship is itself covenantal in character, but the Church has no interest in this fact.
The Story of Sodom has nothing to do with homosexuality. There is every "doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations". The Levitical texts are best understood as relating to cultic prostitution, or as forbidding the inappropriate use of a woman's bed by two men: not same gender physical genital intimacy in general.
In fact, in the passage in question, St Paul is concerned with Christians involved with litigation in civil courtsIn Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations. Finally, 1Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.[1Cor 6:1-8] , not with developing any kind of "eschatological perspective"! He then passes on to talk of law-breaking in general[1Cor 6: 9-13] before returning to the subject of heterosexual misconduct[1Cor 6:14-20] which had concerned him in the previous chapter. He quotes the Scripture "the two shall become one"[1Cor 6:17] only in reference to heterosexual prostitution[1Cor 6:15-18]. The words "malakoi" and "arsenokoites" have no clear translation. There is no sufficient reason to take them to refer to homosexuality of any kind, and certainly not homosexuals in general! It is interesting to note that the letter of the Holy Office doesn't say: "all those who behave....." This subtly leaves open the possibility that only some forms of homosexual activity (e.g. prostitution) might be at issue here.
This exegesis is so poor as to be unworthy of further comment. Note, however, the uncharacteristic care to use inclusive terminology here: "humankind". The passage from Romans is the only scriptural text that has ever been construed as referring to female homogender genital intimacy.7. The Church, obedient to the Lord who founded her and gave to her the sacramental life, celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. It is only in the marital relationship that the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good. A person engaging in homosexual behaviour therefore acts immorally.
To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent. As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfilment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.
The conclusion that homosexual behaviour is immoral follows from an unsubstantiated, unjustified and uncorroborated premise, that: "only in the marital relationship" can "the use of the sexual faculty can be morally good". What "rich symbolism and meaning" is meant? How is it "annulled"? Later propogandists have made various unsuccessful attempted to answer these questions.8. Thus, the Church's teaching today is in organic continuity with the Scriptural perspective and with her own constant Tradition. Though today's world is in many ways quite new, the Christian community senses the profound and lasting bonds which join us to those generations who have gone before us, "marked with the sign of faith".The Gospel nowhere says that procreation is the essence of Christian living. It does not even compare "that form of self giving which" characterizes "the Gospel" with procreation.
Why is "homosexual activity" more "self-indulgent" than that between a husband and wife during "the safe period"?
How does this doctrine "defend personal freedom and dignity ... understood" in anything other than a heteronymous, and so heterodox, manner?
The letter here claims, with a "Thus" to have shown something to be true, when in fact it has not done so. The Scriptural perspective is quite different from that which the letter purports to have elucidated. Not a single reference has in fact been made to the supposed "constant Tradition"! An attempt to rectify this omission is made in the later document on Gay Marriage.Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.
This is encouraging. It shows The Holy Office to be aware of a ground-swell of opinion contrary to its own. It shows that the Holy Office perceives that "enormous pressure" is being brought to bear. In the past, such pressure has often resulted in a volte-face. Unfortunately, the only example of such a volte-face involving gender or sex is that of female altar servers.The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.The second part of this paragraph is an unworthy attempt to establish guilt by association.
What advantage is this, apart from the victory of truth and justice over error and bigotry?9. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.
This vilifies non-celibate Catholic homosexuals as somehow having it in for the Church. The converse is in fact the case: the Magisterium has it in for them! The concern that in fact motivates many such people is a hunger and thirst for truth, justice and peace. The main tactic of the Hierarchy, as is made explicit later in this letter, is to stifle all discussion.There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.
How is it that "the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people"? One presumes the issue here is AIDS. The Magisterium fails to recognize the converse argument and allow that because its teaching regarding the use of condoms "may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people" it should be derogated from because of "the magnitude of the risks involved". What matters always is what is true and just: not what is expedient.The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.
It is insulting to be told in a letter characterized by "facile argument" that clearly thought out and substantiated conclusions are "deceitful propaganda". Such is the low level to which discussion has collapsed. How does "the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love" have any "impact" whatsoever "on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family"? How is it that it "puts them in jeopardy"? The Holy Office is silent on these matters, because it cannot substantiate these prejudicial statements.10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.
But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behaviour to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.
I doubt that "civil legislation is" ever "introduced to protect" homosexual "behaviour". I can't understand why it ever would be. Rather, laws are required, and are gradually being enacted, that give prevent either the State or third parties from disadvantaging others because they are homosexual. Pension rights for same-sex partners would not, for example, be conditional on the persons in question actually having sex with each other!11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.The law shouldn't concern itself with consenting sexual behaviour unless it is demonstrably contrary to the objective well-being of at least one of the parties involved. This would imply that the affected party was deranged and incapable of reasonable consent. There is never a need to "protect" any kind of "behaviour", certainly not homosexual behaviour: just not to criminalize it!
Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace.
It is gratifying that the Holy Office doesn't see homosexuality as any more compulsive than heterosexuality. It is insulting that the Holy Office see no alternative for a homosexual other than the "abandonment of homosexual activity" and also that its apparrent purpose in allowing that not all homosexual behaviour is compulsive is to allow it to condemn all non-compulsive behaviour as culpable.12. What, then, are homosexual persons to do who seek to follow the Lord? Fundamentally, they are called to enact the will of God in their life by joining whatever sufferings and difficulties they experience in virtue of their condition to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross. That Cross, for the believer, is a fruitful sacrifice since from that death come life and redemption. While any call to carry the cross or to understand a Christian's suffering in this way will predictably be met with bitter ridicule by some, it should be remembered that this is the way to eternal life for all who follow Christ.
It is, in effect, none other than the teaching of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians when he says that the Spirit produces in the lives of the faithful "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, trustfulness, gentleness and self-control" (5:22) and further (v. 24), "You cannot belong to Christ unless you crucify all self-indulgent passions and desires."
It is easily misunderstood, however, if it is merely seen as a pointless effort at self-denial. The Cross is a denial of self, but in service to the will of God himself who makes life come from death and empowers those who trust in him to practise virtue in place of vice.
To celebrate the Paschal Mystery, it is necessary to let that Mystery become imprinted in the fabric of daily life. To refuse to sacrifice one's own will in obedience to the will of the Lord is effectively to prevent salvation. Just as the Cross was central to the expression of God's redemptive love for us in Jesus, so the conformity of the self-denial of homosexual men and women with the sacrifice of the Lord will constitute for them a source of self-giving which will save them from a way of life which constantly threatens to destroy them.
Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God's personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord's grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.
This is all quite excellent, except that it envisages a false premise, namely that same gender genital intimacy is wrong. Manifestly, it would be ludicrous for the Holy Office to command all heterosexuals to be continent under pain of mortal sin and justify this in terms of "self-denial."13. We recognize, of course, that in great measure the clear and successful communication of the Church's teaching to all the faithful, and to society at large, depends on the correct instruction and fidelity of her pastoral ministers. The Bishops have the particularly grave responsibility to see to it that their assistants in the ministry, above all the priests, are rightly informed and
The characteristic concern and good will exhibited by many clergy and religious in their pastoral care for homosexual persons is admirable, and, we hope, will not diminish. Such devoted ministers should have the confidence that they are faithfully following the will of the Lord by encouraging the homosexual person to lead a chaste life and by affirming that person's God-given dignity and worth.
14. With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one's conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word "Catholic" to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way.
It is conceited for the Holy Office to equate its own teaching (not even that of the Episcopate) with that of Jesus.15. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.
We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. 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.
The statement that "Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral" is prophetic. The doctrine enunciated in this letter is not true, hence its outworkings cannot be pastorally effective.An authentic pastoral programme will 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. In such a way, the entire Christian community can come to recognize its own call to assist its brothers and sisters, without deluding them or isolating them.
16. From this multi-faceted approach there are numerous advantages to be gained, not the least of which is the realization that a homosexual person, as every human being, deeply needs to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously.
The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.
The refusal "to consider the person as a heterosexual or a homosexual" would be welcome, if it were sincere.17. In bringing this entire matter to the Bishops' attention, this Congregation wishes to support their efforts to assure that the teaching of the Lord and his Church on this important question be communicated fully to all the faithful.However, the letter has already made it clear that even in the absence of same gender genital activity, some people have a "more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil" and explicitly describes such a one as a "homosexual person."
The phrase "homosexual person" is used in this letter sixteen times.
In fact, the view of The Holy Office is that all human beings ought to be heterosexual in nature, even though some are not naturally so.
In light of the points made above, they should decide for their own dioceses the extent to which an intervention on their part is indicated. In addition, should they consider it helpful, further co-ordinated action at the level of their National Bishops' Conference may be envisioned.
In a particular way, we would ask the Bishops to support, with the means at their disposal, the development of appropriate forms of pastoral care for homosexual persons. These would include the assistance of the psychological, sociological and medical sciences, in full accord with the teaching of the Church.
They are encouraged to call on the assistance of all Catholic theologians who, by teaching what the Church teaches, and by deepening their reflections on the true meaning of human sexuality and Christian marriage with the virtues it engenders, will make an important contribution in this particular area of pastoral care.
See for example these documents.The Bishops are asked to exercise special care in the selection of pastoral ministers so that by their own high degree of spiritual and personal maturity and by their fidelity to the Magisterium, they may be of real service to homosexual persons, promoting their health and well-being in the fullest sense. Such ministers will reject theological opinions which dissent from the teaching of the Church and which, therefore, cannot be used as guidelines for pastoral care.
We encourage the Bishops to promote appropriate catechetical programmes based on the truth about human sexuality in its relationship to the family as taught by the Church. Such programmes should provide a good context within which to deal with the question of homosexuality.
This catechesis would also assist those families of homosexual persons to deal with this problem which affects them so deeply.
All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous.
In assessing proposed legislation, the Bishops should keep as their uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and promote family life.
"The teaching of The Lord" on this matter is: precisely nothing whatsoever. The diffuse issue of family values is used to obscurely justify and motivate the denigration and marginalization of homosexual people.18. The Lord Jesus promised, "You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free" (Jn. 8:32). Scripture bids us speak the truth in love (cf. Eph. 4:15). The God who is at once truth and love calls the Church to minister to every man, woman and child with the pastoral solicitude of our compassionate Lord. It is in this spirit that we have addressed this Letter to the Bishops of the Church, with the hope that it will be of some help as they care for those whose suffering can only be intensified by error and lightened by truth.
Once more, the Holy Office makes a prophetic statement. This letter condemns its own authors, implicating them in causing the suffering of homosexuals by peddling and popularizing error.(During an audience granted to the undersigned Prefect, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, approved this Letter, adopted in an ordinary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ordered it to be published.)
Given at Rome, 1 October 1986.
JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER
Prefect
ALBERTO BOVONE
Titular Archbishop of Caesarea in Numidia
Secretary
A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at lest not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.
In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with
understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming personal difficulties
and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged
with prudence. 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 such people. For according to the objective
moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential
and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a
serious depravity and even presented as a sad consequence of rejecting
God. This judgement of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude
that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible
for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are
intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved.