Naturally, general public interest in the workings of the Roman Catholic church is shaped by reporting which centers either on only socially controversial questions, or on the intrigue generated by the selection of a new pope.
But a more reflective consideration of the material goes past the superficial presentations in the news media.
Both the non-Catholic and the anti-Catholic media covered offhand remarks made by Pope Francis I shortly after he took office in 2013. Prematurely reading ideas into the pontiff’s words, they later experienced, as Kathleen Parker writes,
chagrin to some who too soon interpreted Francis’s broad compassion as a precursor to doctrinal changes related to marriage.
Learning that Francis was not preparing a rebellion against the church’s expressed understanding of marriage, the disappointed media reverted to its previous pattern of alternatingly ignoring or disparaging the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Thus there was little coverage when Francis
delivered a pastoral message that is consistent with the church’s long-held beliefs on marriage.
While the media insist on oversimplifying the narrative - either the pope will stay with tradition or flatly oppose it - they missed the more important development. Pope Francis has indeed made, or is at least attempting to make, a major change in the Roman Catholic church’s perspective on homosexuality. As Kathleen Parker frames it,
What’s different is his language. He has sought fresh ways to see and think about things.
Francis has continued the obvious stance of the Roman Catholic church: it is a sin to engage willfully, physically, and deliberately in homosexual genital contact.
But Francis has made a major departure from past patterns of statements on the topic. What he seems to be articulating is a view in which the church’s major task is not moralizing, denouncing sin, or placing disproportionately large amounts of effort into justifying the moral stance.
Perhaps Francis is expressing the notion that the church should make clear moral statements, but not invest large efforts into producing argumentation and social action surrounding those statements. In short, maybe Francis is saying that the church as been placing too much energy into what are called the ‘culture wars.’
To deemphasize the culture wars is not, however, to stop engaging the culture or to stop resolutely affirming moral teaching. It is precisely this point which eludes much reporting. Francis is
unyielding in his definition of family — a man and woman joined in marriage.
One idea which one might attribute to Francis is this: the church should say, yes, voluntary homosexual behavior is a sin, but the church has other important business to do. The church should and must enunciate unambiguous ethical propositions, but then proceed to feed the poor and preach the Gospel of Jesus.
The church should not let itself get bogged down in endless debates about human sexuality, nor let itself be baited by those in the public arena who are continually attempting to provoke it.
Unequivocal moral declarations should be made, but should not become the major focus of the church. Every effort should be made to ensure that positive ministry is the centerpiece of the organized church.
On such a point, an interesting comparison can be made between the Roman Catholic church and the Salvation Army. The latter organization has made clear moral statements about human sexuality, but has made them in passing, and maintained ministering to the physical and spiritual needs of the poor as its major mission and the vast majority of its effort. Is Francis attempting to nudge his church in a similar direction?
Francis clearly has suggested that he wants to make pastoral changes without changing doctrine.
Under this interpretation, Francis is in no way compromising the moral stance of the church. He is simply placing it within a larger vision of the church’s proper functions.
Comparing homosexuality to other sins is instructive. Smoking cigarettes, failing to properly maintain one’s physical possessions, using inappropriate words in public or in private, failing to eat a proper amount vegetables, failing to donate to charities which care for the poor - all are sins. Why allow the church’s energy to be consumed in great disproportion about one particular sin?
To be sure, there are other interpretations of Francis. With so many reporters writing about the Vatican, any number of opinions about the current pope are available. Time will tell which are correct.
To all appearances, however, it seems that Francis is urging the church to move forward in positive ministry, spreading the love of Jesus to all people, because it is a foundational point of dogma that all people are sinners.
In this way, those who engage in homosexual acts are no different than anyone else: all are sinners, all are hopeless and helpless without Jesus, and all can receive hope and help from Jesus. All humans are utterly dependent on God’s forgiveness for their grave moral failures.
Without weakening the church’s moral determination on questions of human sexuality, Francis appears to be expressing the idea that the church needs simply to move forward in positive ministry. Once the clear ethical proposition has been expressed, the matter is settled. Energy is better used to feed the poor and declare God’s love to all people.
