Soulforce and the Catholic Church: Prejudice

Soulforce and the Catholic Church

A Catholic Response to Prejudice against Homosexual Persons
“It is deplorable,” the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith writes, “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” (CDF, 1986, ¶10).

Chesterton once observed that there are two things, and two things only, which can guide human minds in forming judgments: dogma or prejudice. The response of the Catholic Church, as represented by its documents and official statements from senior leadership has been clearly consistent with Catholic doctrine and teaching on the meaning of human sexuality.

However, the Church distinguishes the legitimate moral judgment that homosexual acts are wrong from an illegitimate prejudice against homosexuals, a prejudice which is still respectable among many Christians.

For example, the Anglican Communion seems about to experience a serious schism over the ordination of Gene Robinson as the communion’s first openly gay bishop, and over the communion’s growing acceptance of same-sex unions. Like all orthodox Catholics, I agree with Anglican conservatives that the ordination of Gene Robinson is evidence that many Anglicans are turning away from Christian revelation and the message of the Gospel. And I agree that it is impossible for the Church of Christ to confer God’s blessing on a homosexual relationship. To the degree that it embraces such false blessings, it ceases to be the Church of Jesus Christ.

But bad fruit does not generally fall that far from the tree. For decades, the Anglican Communion has harbored bishops who openly questioned the virgin birth, the divinity of Christ, and the authority of Scripture. Anglicans not only (contrary to Christ’s command) allow divorce and remarriage; they even have a form of blessing divorces. What, then, is one to make of a conservative Anglican who was willing to remain in communion with heretics and apostates, and can stomach quite large quantities of heterosexual sin, but suddenly decides to break communion over Gene Robinson and the advent of same-sex unions? It is not Ecumenical to speak too harshly of one’s separated brethren. But I think it is fair to say that a man who could maintain communion with Bishop John Shelby Spong cannot claim that his primary motive for schism in the Gene Robinson affair is doctrinal purity. There is surely an element of prejudice and hypocrisy.

And it is not difficult to find much more obvious examples of prejudice. When I was in college, there was a controversy on campus involving whether or not one of the Bible Study groups on campus could exclude practicing homosexuals from leadership positions. During the controversy, there was a meeting of a group of Christians at which the subject came up. A prominent Evangelical pastor said, “I have no problem with gays in leadership, as long as the first thing they do is lead themselves and their faggotty-assed friends right out of my church.” And this man is not from the fringe. He wrote a book published by a prominent Evangelical publishing house, which I have seen on the shelves at Barnes & Noble.

At the 2003 Courage Conference, protesters affiliated with Dignity, the Rainbow Sash Movement, and Soulforce joined to protest the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. Some friends of mine and I went out to speak with the protesters, hoping to understand where they were coming from and why they objected to Courage. We weren’t trying to win a debate. At one point, we joined them in singing some hymns. We were trying to reach out with Christian love to them, and that meant trying to establish some trust. I believe that it was more important for them to see Christ’s love in our actions than for us to quote all the right paragraphs from the Catechism to condemn homosexual acts.

One of the messages we heard over and over again concerned hypocrisy: heterosexual couples live together before marriage. The vast majority of Catholic married couples use contraceptives. The leadership in most parishes looks the other way as this goes on. Yet the Church continues to refuse to grant recognition to gay marriage.

Sometimes, the hypocrisy is even more obvious. I have encountered quite conservative Catholics who say they would rather have a heterosexual son or daughter living in sin than a homosexual son or daughter living a chaste life. This can only be prejudice, because Catholic doctrine says that heterosexual fornication is a mortal sin, while a chaste homosexual is living in obedience and grace.

However, Soulforce does not simply argue that there are lots of prejudiced Catholics (an argument which may or may not be true). They argue that Catholic teaching itself promotes violence against gays and lesbians. This seems to me a weak argument. No one thinks that Biblical teaching against fornication contributes to violence against college students who cohabitate before marriage. Nor would anyone argue that when the Catechism calls masturbation “intrinsically and gravely disordered” (¶2352), the Church is encouraging violence against teenaged boys.

A personal story may help to cut through Soulforce’s rhetoric and focus on the realities of prejudice against homosexuals. Last Fall, I was out for a stroll around one of Seattle’s suburbs with a friend who has stereotypically gay dress and mannerisms. As we walked along, we passed a group of teenage boys hanging out around their cars, listening to rap music. As we walked by, one called out, “hey faggot!”

This is, of course, the sort of incident which Soulforce would blame on the “climate of hostility” created by traditional Christian teaching. But before accepting this claim, we ought to analyze it for a moment. No Catholic document encourages either beating up or verbally taunting homosexuals. In fact, as I quoted at the beginning of this section, the Catholic Church has, with the full weight of magisterial teaching, condemned this kind of behavior directly and explicitly.

So let’s start off with a healthy dose of common sense. These kids were dressed like they had just stepped out of a clothing commercial on TV, and were listening to rap music. I would be willing to bet every penny I have that the boy who yelled, “faggot” is far more deeply influenced by the media than he is by the Bible or Catholic teaching. And hence, the first place to look for an explanation of their behavior is in the media, not Catholic teaching.

They were listening to rap music, and quite a few rap lyrics do encourage attacks on homosexuals. Not only so, but the whole culture promoted by the entertainment industry is highly sexualized. In theory, therefore, it is a culture which should welcome homosexuals’ desire to fulfill their sexual longings. In practice, however, if teenage boys are never encouraged to learn sexual self-discipline, but are instead encouraged to yield to their every animal instinct, they will naturally fear homosexuals, because they will expect homosexual males to pursue them with the same aggressive attitude with which they pursue females. A culture of hedonism is therefore almost certain to become a culture of violence.

If Catholic teaching really promoted violence against those whose sins it condemns, it would be necessary to beat up everyone on the planet: for “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). In fact, those who engage in “violent malice in speech or in action” against homosexuals are operating out of prejudice, not respect for Catholic teaching.

And if Soulforce were really concerned with violence directed against same-sex attracted persons, they could much more profitably focus on protesting media companies that promote “violent malice in speech or in action” through their rap lyrics. They could join the protests when rappers like Eminem are given the highest awards for “artistic achievement.” That they do not suggests to me that they are more concerned with silencing the moral voice of the Gospel and of Christians who continue to teach that Christian discipleship is incompatible with sexual liberation.

Authentic liberation for those with same-sex attractions can only be achieved through embracing the “long and arduous quest after truth.” It is for this reason that the Vatican’s letter argues, “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 behavior 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” (CDF, 1986, ¶10). Many have criticized this statement, calling it callous and accusing the Church of “blaming the victim.” But the Vatican is not blaming the victim. It is pointing out the unalterable fact that only the Truth can set us free.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that the Catholic Church does not seek to control people’s lives. In Ut Unum Sint, Pope John Paul II says that “the Church is committed to freeing herself from every purely human support, in order to live in depth the Gospel law of the Beatitudes. Conscious that the truth does not impose itself except ‘by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power’ she seeks nothing for herself but the freedom to proclaim the Gospel” (¶3).

The Catholic Church does not interfere with Soulforce’s right to free assembly, nor does She try to disrupt Soulforce members in their private lives. Catholics seek to proclaim the truth about human sexuality, and to speak out against public policies which would distort the truth. The Church (following God’s revelation) calls homosexual activity a serious sin; but she calls violence against homosexuals a serious sin, as well, and speaks out against both.

Catholics do not seek to limit others freedom. We seek only the freedom to proclaim the Gospel, confident that whoever hears the Gospel and obeys it will be able to “gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (Catechism, ¶2359), and will discover that the way of the cross is the true road to eternal happiness.

See Also:

[ Home ] [ Meetings ] [ Five Goals ] [ Fourteen Points ] [ Chaplains ] [ Resources ]