Episcopal Bishop Hopes Rome Will Return to Him

Before Gene Robinson’s recent article in Time Magazine, the last time I can recall a liberal Protestant speaking glowingly about the Pope was Lutheran Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson’s eulogy for John Paul II.

Robinson, like much of the American press is excited about Pope Francis’s comments during his flight following World Youth Day. The comments in question are as follows:

Then, you spoke about the gay lobby. So much is written about the gay lobby. I still haven’t found anyone with an identity card in the Vatican with “gay” on it. They say there are some there. I believe that when you are dealing with such a person, you must distinguish between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of someone forming a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. This one is not good. If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in a beautiful way, saying … wait a moment, how does it say it … it says: “no one should marginalize these people for this, they must be integrated into society”.

I have added the italics in an effort to replicate the minds of the many reporters aboard the plane with Francis. USA Today, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and the nearby (to me) Minneapolis Star Tribune all ran stories expressing almost childlike giddiness that the Catholic Church was finally beginning to come around on the question of homosexuality. But, as the middle of the sentence in question shows, the Pope consciously placed a qualifier on his delayed judgment. The gay person in question ought to be understood as analogous to the tax collector in Luke’s rendering of Jesus’ parable. He stands at the door of the temple in total repentance.

But don’t bother pointing that out to the popular press. From the eighty-minute press conference, exactly 11 words made the headlines. In some ways, the situation reminds me of my childhood, when my fellow 7 years olds and I would sing ‘Deck the Halls’, eager for the moment we could use the word ‘gay’. Then there were other times, when our teacher would be reading some historical address and the ‘g’ word came up in context as meaning ‘happy’. Oh how we would giggle and pass notes amongst ourselves. Sadly, the American Press doesn’t seem to have matured much past the level of me and my grade-school peers. The Pope said the word ‘gay’, so let us all get giddy and pass notes to each other. Though, they have learned something from their years on this planet. Their childish note passing is now passed off under the more discreet title of ‘journalism’.

One is at least comforted by the honesty of Slate, who were kind enough to write this story titled “Holy Smoke! Meet Pope Francis. He Has One Lung, Loves the Bus, and Hates Gay Marriage.” At least they know that the Pope is no ally in this cause.

Robinson on the other hand dares to dream. His article in Time magazine serves a dual purpose, first as a rather slippery commentary on the Pope’s remarks, secondly as an even slipperier apologia for the compatibility of homosexuality and Christianity. With such an easy starting point, I am going to here use his article as the core to outline the Catholic and orthodox understanding of this matter.

Robinson refers to the 11 words as the statement…

“that has come to define the trip and has sparked hope that the Roman Catholic Church might be softening its stance on being gay. (Even using the word gay, which Francis did in English while otherwise speaking Italian, is unprecedented for a Pope.)”

Here several issues come into play. How does change in the Roman Catholic Church occur? Can it occur? What is the proper vocabulary for a Pontiff? Should he use words like ‘gay’?

Getting the Pope right on these points is all the more important in our day of instant sound bites and sloppy theological inquiry. A girl I know has on her door 140+ questions that, until they are answered, will prevent her from believing in God. They range anywhere from, “How can we know for certain there is a God?” to “What is the big deal with altar servers having to wear albs?” In conversation with the local priest, these questions and others like it were fired off indiscriminately, with no concept of order. Never mind that if there is no God and Jesus is not his son; then any Christian denomination is a waste of time. Never mind that those questions must be answered first before a discernment of denomination can take place.

But this method of questioning is common among the young, bright minds of modern universities. So it falls to the Christian students on campus to have not only their arguments for the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus polished and ready to go, they also must interpret and argue for the proper understanding of current events. Pope Francis has become a media starlet and a hero for many outside the Church. But when asked about Francis’ “Who am I to judge?” remark, we must fill out the most important part of the question: “If someone is gay and is searching for the Lord and has good will, then who am I to judge him?” Remember also, as Ross Douthat noted in Bad Religion, ‘searching for God’ in modern liberal belief, often means searching for “one’s true self.” So we must also be very clear about whom God is.

Robinson also opens the door to a myriad of questions about the papacy. Consider these two excerpts:

Francis’ immediate predecessors called homosexuality an “intrinsic moral evil” and branded homosexuals as “intrinsically disordered.” Instead of mirroring those blanket condemnations, Francis offered kindness and compassion. Then, in an act of genuine humility, he asked, “Who am I to judge?”

…a closer look at the Pope’s statement reveals little change in the church’s stance on being gay. When Francis says gay people should be forgiven their sins like other people, he means that acting on their feelings for someone of the same gender is still a sin that requires forgiveness–a point the Vatican made clear shortly after his remarks.

The first except contains an outright fabrication. It is homosexuality that is “intrinsically disordered”. No human can be intrinsically disordered until they are in hell. Here we all have grace available should we accept it. The distinguishing of ‘homosexuality’ as an idea or a lifestyle and ‘homosexuals’ as persons created in the image of God, but who have fallen into error, is becoming an ever more important distinction to make. Now that Pope Francis is being compared at every turn to his two predecessors, the “hermeneutic of continuity” through which we view the papacy must be reiterated to the world again and again, with fierce conviction.

But, a hermeneutic of continuity need not simply be a hermeneutic of indistinguishability. The men who become Pope are, prior to their vocations, actual men. They come from different parts of the world, with different backgrounds and different gifts. To expect them all to express themselves in the same manner and tone is ludicrous. Beyond that, conversations never stay static. In life topics come and go, rise and fall, and at some points explaining principle takes priority, at others practice is more important.

The Church’s present conversation with the modern world, begun in Gaudium et Spes has three features. The first is the proclamation of a Christ centered Church, in continuity with all that has come before in the life of the Church. The second feature, on display prominently in the life of Cardinal Bergoglio and Pope Francis, is an intentional focus on the spiritual phenomenon of the modern man. Lastly, the conversation of the Church always seeks to move modern man closer to Christ. As any reliable commentary on the virtue of prudence will argue, sometimes moving man to Christ requires the smallest of baby steps.

In the late twentieth century, when both Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger were doing their major work as thinkers, homosexuality was rather new to many people. The webs of communication, which we so easily take for granted, were being erected and exposure to new ideas and new lifestyles was happening at a startling rate. The idea of homosexuality had to be responded to. These two great Pope’s did just that. John Paul’s two masterpieces Love and Responsibility and Theology of the Body provide an immensely rich account of the sexual nature of man, while Pope Benedict has place the teaching of his predecessor in the context of the great Christian narrative. It is this intellectual foundation upon which Pope Francis stands today.

The conversation then can move to the question of homosexual persons. Here is the distinction Robinson misses. The change Pope Francis’ tone doesn’t indicate a change in position, but a change in subject. Homosexuality has been soundly examined already, the people who suffer from it now must be addressed and the only tone proper to address human persons with is a tone of compassion.

Analogously, at least in my home state of Minnesota, is the recent anti-smoking campaign taken up by Quitplan.com. I recall the early days of this health campaign when ads featured faceless smokers sitting at a bar, while a helpless waitress breathed in their secondhand smoke. Or consider this ad which shows smoking to have mutilated the body of Terri, who now must use a wig, dentures and a hole in her throat to breathe. Smoking in the abstract is painted as evil, harmful, fatal. But how do the anti-smoking crusaders address actual smokers? They take a distinctly more humanitarian approach. Here the smokers are shown to be average people who just need to get that monkey off their backs. No judgment, no harassment, just an assurance that they too can quit smoking. If the modern mind can distinguish between smoking as an abstract act, being evil and deadly, and smokers as being regular people who need help in their quest to quit, why not suggest the same distinction with homosexuality and homosexuals? It’s the same situation; both can be freed from their respective monkeys. Or can they? Consider another excerpt from Robinson’s article:

Would a loving God create a certain portion of humankind to be affectionally drawn to people of the same gender yet deprive them of ever expressing that love, finding intimacy with and commitment to another person and solemnizing that love in the institution of marriage? That surely would be a cruel God, hardly worthy of praise and devotion.

It is here that Gene accomplishes what I had previously thought to be an impossible task. In one sentence he tells no less than three lies about the issue of homosexuality and gay marriage. They are: the ‘created by God’ myth (‘Born This Way’ in Lady Gaga’s famous song), exclusive focus on sex as being the only way to express intimacy and that the purpose of marriage is to have “commitment to another person” and that in getting married one is “solemnizing” their love.

The ‘born this way’ argument is a politically effective one to say the least. Stephen Colbert recently received praise from the website Gawker for running this segment about the openly gay mayor of Vicco, Kentucky. Colbert ends the segment with an interview of one of the local bumpkins on the issue of homosexuality. The man can’t understand how God could have created certain people gay but then cruelly ask them to ignore or overcome their inborn desires. Never mind that I could be born with a susceptibility to alcoholism yet still be asked not to indulge in booze. But there is a better argument to be made.

When Robinson uses the verb ‘create’ to describe the action of God, I take him to mean either one of two things. One, he may be referring to a sort of natural law or natural right view, in which human persons, by their very nature are ordered to certain goods. This tradition has a tremendous history ranging all the way back to Aristotle, Cicero, Thomas Aquinas more recently, with Leo Straus and John Finnis being two major contributors in the twentieth century. But the pedigree is my reason for doubting that Robinson has natural law in his mind. He strikes me as the type of person who disdains ancient traditions, simply because they are ancient, preferring Thursday to Wednesday, as in Chesterton’s image.

Also, Robinson makes a passing reference to the sexual abuse crisis and the linking of homosexuality with pedophilia, a link “that has been thoroughly debunked by science.” If it is science Robinson wants, then it is science he shall receive.

More often than not, the scientific version of the ‘born this way’ assertion relies on the DNA makeup of the person. The number of references to the “gay gene”, made both in popular press and heated debates in dorm room common areas are too numerous to mention. Still, it must be noted exactly what the role of genes are in the biology of human beings.

Genes in themselves cannot directly specify any behavior of psychological phenomenon. Instead, genes direct a particular pattern of RNA synthesis, which in turn may influence the development of psychological dispositions and expressions of behaviors. There are necessarily many intervening pathways between a gene and a disposition or a behavior, and even more intervening variables between a gene and a pattern that involves both thinking and behaving. The terms “gay gene” and “homosexual gene” are therefore without meaning.

That is how Edward Stein goes about debunking the ‘gay gene’ myth in his book The Mismeasure of Desire: The Science, Theory and Ethics of Sexual Orientation. For those worried that Stein is a token conservative thinker, on call to legitimize the views of the ideological right, he isn’t. He is an openly gay activist. But maybe he’s a sloppy scientist whose works aren’t critically examined by a rigorous publishing house? I guess that all depends on how rigorous or critical one takes Oxford University Press to be.

Beyond Stein’s work, several cases have sprung up which debunk the idea that homosexuality is a genetically determined part of a person’s identity. Case studies of identical twins have shown that one may develop same sex attraction, while the other remains sexually straight. A study, which appeared in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, found that if one twin was not heterosexual, in only 11% of cases was the other twin not heterosexual. That means in 89% of the twin pairs where one is gay, the other is not. And as Aaron Sorkin reminded us in The Social Network, during a clunky exchange between the Winklevii twins; “we’re genetically identical, science says we’d stay in the same place.” They were referring to rowing opposite each other, but the point holds. If homosexuality were genetically determined, science would demand that twins stay in the same place. That, however, is not the case.

A far more probable explanation for the phenomenon of homosexual attraction comes from early childhood experience. Some events and relationships, though we may not remember them, have a tremendous impact on how we psychologically process the world. Psychoanalyst and committed feminist Elaine Siegel once was asked by a feminist group to come in and treat certain members who were suffering from psychological problems. As a good therapist, it was necessary to try and solve the underlying problems rather than the surface symptoms. As she went about her practice, without either the patient’s or Siegel’s intention, over half of the women she treated lost their attraction to women and became fully heterosexual. The “sisters” of the lesbian group, of course, took this as a very grave betrayal. Siegel’s account of the matter can be found in her article: Female Homosexuality: Choice Without Volition- A Psychoanalytic Study. And for those who want to read more about the debunking of the ‘born this way’ myth, pick up One Man, One Woman by Dale O’Leary. The arguments above have come from that work and I am tremendously grateful to have such an articulate argument as an aide in this cultural disagreement.

Also, it is fortunate for those of us who make such arguments about the origins and nature of homosexuality that our opponents, those supporters of gay marriage or of the homosexual lifestyle, are so devoted to pluralism, mutual understanding and respect for all ideas. In raising these issues in the public square, I have never known them to be dismissed, ridiculed or ignored.

So as we go forth to argue and debate, please consider one last thought from Robinson:

Pope Francis’ comments may be a baby step toward inclusion–but it is a step that should be greeted with optimism and hope that the church may one day welcome all of God’s children. If God is love, as Scripture attests, then surely God is gay love too.

From what has been argued above, I hope it is clear that Pope Francis isn’t changing the Church’s stance, just perhaps the Church’s focus, away from homosexuality and onto homosexuals. The evil has been identified, it is time to welcome our prodigal brothers and sisters home. Also, the notion of ‘gay love’ ought to at least raise eyebrows, given the evidence I have presented above about the origins of homosexuality.

But we must end with a harsh condemnation of Robinson’s argument. To equate “God’s Love” with “gay love” as Robinson does, is nothing less than anti-Christian heresy. Maybe Robinson, and his readers too, have in mind the warm fuzzy aspect of love, the feeling of walking on sunshine. But love, especially God’s love is always expressed through acts. The suffering, death and resurrection of Christ, an act filled with sweat, blood and tears, but finally glory, is the act by which God perfectly expressed his love for humanity. To conflate that love with the typical carnal expression of homosexuality is unfathomably disrespectful. It is a forced analogy almost as bad as maintaining that the woman who is defending her abortion and Christ Jesus mean exactly the same thing when they say, “This is my body.”