In and Out: The French Ambassador and Other Terminal Employment
Misunderstanding Church teaching.
On Saturday I wrote a post questioning why the Vatican would not accept the credentials of an openly homosexual French envoy. It seemed to me to be a form of discrimination, and I only questioned it because I was under the impression the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, as well as USCCB were opposed to discrimination against homosexuals as regards basic human rights, such as housing and employment. I was correct, yet not without a certain level of misunderstanding… There can be exceptions.
Abiding by company policy.
A week or so ago I posted on a similar story dealing with a Wisconsin choir director losing his job because of his homosexuality. Of course when you present to work for a company, you need to abide by the company policy; and if one works for the Church, one needs to act in accord with expected morality. Therefore, if a person is publicly living an irregular life it can be a source of scandal, thus terminating a man’s employment, though difficult to accept, may be necessary. I understand that.
The “=” bumper sticker.
In our society, the homosexual agenda - and yes there is one - just think about National Coming Out day, or Pride Month and other “promotional” events staged by homosexual activist groups. What is the agenda? - That homosexual acts and relationships receive parity with heterosexual acts and relationships - especially same sex marriage, Social Security benefits, and so on. That is what the “rainbow” and “equal” bumper stickers on cars are constantly reminding us of.
Homosexuals in primetime.
That said, contemporary culture has endorsed many of the demands made by the homosexual movement, going beyond simple tolerance. We are exposed to it in every aspect of media, which has gradually presented the lifestyle as normative. The discussion of rights vs. discrimination has evolved to the point that most of us almost take for granted that the issue is a natural outgrowth of the civil rights movement for racial equality and therefore the same thing. As regards popular culture, homosexuality has now become mainstream and is generally accepted.
Ask, don’t tell, and DO NOT talk about it.
I think you get the picture and understand why I can be confused at times, especially when I hear about the firings and exclusion of openly gay men from roles of service in the Church. Yes, I am personally aware that there are gay priests - in and out - and that gay men - in and out - are still accepted in seminaries and monasteries. That is another issue, albeit just as troubling. Nevertheless, my question here is, why is a gay man fired or prevented from serving in a public position in the Church? Is it unjust discrimination or what? I found the answer I needed.
The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons. (I will simply present the relevant parts of the 1992 statement from the Congregation with out further comment.)
Rejecting erroneous opinions.
3. “As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment 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” (No. 7).
Tactics of the movement.
4. In reference to the homosexual movement, the letter states: “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” (No. 9).
Manipulating church opinion.
5. “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” (No. 9)
The “=” sign.
6. “She (the church) 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” (No. 9)
Sexual orientation.
10. “Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. “Letter,” No. 3) and evokes moral concern.
Just discrimination.
11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.
Certain “rights” are not absolute.
12. Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. No. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good.
Legislative protection and promotion.
13. Including “homosexual orientation” among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person’s homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights. - CDF Document
Therefore, “I disown what I have said, and repent in dust and ashes.” - Book of Job 42
[Photo: Kevin Kline and Bob Newhart from "In and Out".]
