Same-sex Marriage

Pope Francis enforces secrecy even while saying that he hopes for 'synodality'

Pope Francis enforces secrecy even while saying that he hopes for 'synodality'

There’s no better indicator of how fraught things have become in the upper echelons of the Catholic Church than Pope Francis’s surprising, last-minute decision to clamp strict secrecy upon his all-important Synod of Bishops. This Vatican assembly, very likely the major event of his reign, is running through October 29 with a second, concluding session a year from now.

GetReligion editor Terry “tmatt” Mattingly surveyed the pope’s decision last week, but to repeat the basics: Regulations governing the synod, reinforced in Francis’s opening address, direct participants to reveal absolutely nothing about the discussions, including even what they themselves have to say, not just now but forever after (though the Vatican says violators are not under threat of excommunication).

Paradoxically, Francis’s purpose for this synod was to foster openness, flexibility and “synodality,” a vague buzzword for broader participation of all Catholics in their church’s life and governance! His Kremlin-esque blackout breaks from prior synod policy under five popes — including Francis himself.

We’ll see how things play out, but as of this writing the media have been offered only official briefings that are far more anodyne than usual.

The problem with secrecy rules is that they usually work imperfectly or not at all.

A gag order upon actual participants hands the power of information to outsiders’ interest groups, speculations, suspicions and gossip that inevitably influence news coverage and historical interpretation. For instance, note this paywalled New York Times account — “Vatican Conference Draws All Stripes to Rome, Welcome or Not” — of the “Catholic menagerie" assembled in Rome outside the secret Synod.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Synod on Synodality secrets: Are elite journalists concerned about zipped lips?

Synod on Synodality secrets: Are elite journalists concerned about zipped lips?

As a rule, journalists are not fond of secrecy and powerful leaders telling their followers to avoid the press.

This is especially true during high-profile meetings that could end up affecting the lives of a billion or so believers and institutions — parishes, schools, hospitals, you name it — affecting millions more.

Thus, I have been waiting to see what the mainstream press, especially in its most elite forms, would do with the decision by Pope Francis to ask participants in the global Synod on Synodality to, well, zip their lips when it comes to talking to the press. At the very least, I expected in-depth coverage of this angle and a hint of muted outrage.

Nope. Once again, we seem to have an interesting and highly symbolic Catholic story that is, apparently, only “news” to religion-market publications and the “conservative” press. Perhaps it is crucial whether journalists identify more with the views of the leader calling for secrecy than they do with the newsmakers who are anxious see an event proceed “on the record”?

Just asking. I, for one, remember how reporters (including me) pushed hard to open (or even invade) closed-door Catholic proceedings when they focused on clergy sexual abuse and earlier Vatican efforts to discipline adventurous (shall we say) American theologians and even bishops. Journalists were certainly convinced that “Reform Dies in Darkness,” or words to that effect.

Anyway, the Associated Press did include the following way down in a “news you can use” round-up at the start of the synod: “Things to know about the Vatican’s big meeting on the future of the Catholic Church.

The two-year preparatory phase of the synod was marked by a radical transparency in keeping with the goals of the process for participants to listen to each other and learn from one another. So it has come as something of a surprise that Francis has essentially imposed a media blackout on the synod itself.

While originally livestreams were planned, and several extra communications officers were hired, organizers have made clear this is a closed-door meeting and participants have been told to not speak to journalists. 

Paolo Ruffini, in charge of communications for the meeting, denied the debate had been put under the pontifical secret, one of the highest forms of confidentiality in the church.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Five cardinals ask hard questions about doctrine and get a stunning Pope Francis response

Five cardinals ask hard questions about doctrine and get a stunning Pope Francis response

The same-sex blessings near Cologne Cathedral were a public salute to scores of private ceremonies among European Catholics in recent years.

The crowd waved rainbow flags and, according to media reports, sang "All You Need Is Love" by the Beatles. The mid-September rites included Catholic priests reciting blessings for same-sex and heterosexual couples and, though held outside of Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki's cathedral, represented a bold ecclesiastical affront to the city's conservative archbishop.

Are these rites "weddings"? That was a crucial issue raised by five cardinals in "dubia" (Latin for "doubts") questions sent to Pope Francis weeks before the Vatican's global "Synod on Synodality," which opened this week. The five cardinals requested "yes" or "no" answers.

Instead, the pope offered a detailed analysis in which he restated established Catholic doctrines, noting that "the reality that we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that demands an exclusive name." Thus, the church should avoid rites giving the "impression that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage."

Nevertheless, Pope Francis -- writing in July -- urged "pastoral charity" in this issue. Thus, the "defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement. Therefore, we cannot become judges who only deny, reject, exclude.

"For this reason, pastoral prudence must adequately discern whether there are forms of blessing … that do not transmit a mistaken conception of marriage. For when a blessing is requested, one is expressing a request for help from God, a plea for a better life, a trust in a Father who can help us to live better."

This drew praise from Francis DeBernardo, leader of the New Ways Ministry for Catholics seeking changes in centuries of Christian doctrine on sexuality.

"The allowance for pastoral ministers to bless same-gender couples implies that the church does indeed recognize that holy love can exist between same-gender couples, and the love of these couples mirrors the love of God," he wrote.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Pope Francis tips his white hat on (location, location, location) same-sex blessing rites

Podcast: Pope Francis tips his white hat on (location, location, location) same-sex blessing rites

If you have ever bought a home, or looked for property for a business (or a church), you may have heard a realtor say this: “Location, location, location.” The Urban Dictionary defines this term as follows: “Phrase to remind people that the most determining factor in the price of a house is the location.”

Money isn’t the only thing that matters, of course.

Back in the 1980s, I began to realize that this location-times-three mantra was affecting many major religion-beat stories that I was covering, especially in Christian flocks that include folks called “bishops.” In so many cases, what happened in churches — even what was taught from pulpits — was shaped by what that congregation’s bishop encouraged, discouraged or even punished.

This basic equation loomed in the background during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in), which focused on the stunning responses that Pope Francis offered to “dubia” (Latin for “doubts”) documents from five doctrinally conservative cardinals.

Did he or did he not signal his support for same-sex blessing rites (or sort-of rites) in Catholic parishes around the world? Well, this pope is a Jesuit, which means that he declined to give a “yes” or “no” answer. But what he seemed to say was this: There are Catholic clergy who can find ways to show “pastoral charity” to LGBTQ+ Catholics and, if this is OK with their local bishops, they can proceed with blessing gay couples (since that is what many of them are already doing).

Now, this is long and quite Jesuit (the adjective form of the word). But readers need to see all of this to understand what may or may not be showing up in the news that they read. Francis proclaimed:

a) The Church has a very clear conception of marriage: an exclusive, stable, and indissoluble union between a man and a woman, naturally open to the begetting of children. It calls this union “marriage.” Other forms of union only realize it “in a partial and analogous way” (Amoris Laetitia, 292), and so they cannot be strictly called “marriage.”

b) It is not a mere question of names, but the reality that we call marriage has a unique essential constitution that demands an exclusive name, not applicable to other realities. It is undoubtedly much more than a mere “ideal.“

c) For this reason the Church avoids any kind of rite or sacramental that could contradict this conviction and give the impression that something that is not marriage is recognized as marriage.

d) In dealing with people, however, we must not lose the pastoral charity that must permeate all our decisions and attitudes. The defense of objective truth is not the only expression of this charity, which is also made up of kindness, patience, understanding, tenderness, and encouragement.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

New take on culture wars? American Muslims clash with the Sexual Revolution

New take on culture wars? American Muslims clash with the Sexual Revolution

In terms of Islamic doctrine, alcohol is "haram," or forbidden, and the Quran is blunt: "O ye who believe! Strong drink and games of chance and idols and divining arrows are only an infamy of Satan's handiwork."

But it isn't hard to find Muslims that never boarded that bandwagon.

"There are Muslims who drink and get drunk. That's a fact, but that doesn't mean they can change what Islam teaches," said Yasir Qadhi, dean of the Islamic Seminary of America, near Dallas. "That's a sin. We all sin. But we cannot change our faith to fit the new norms in society."

Under normal circumstances, it wouldn't be controversial for Islamic leaders to affirm that their faith teaches absolute, unchanging truths about moral issues -- including subjects linked to sexuality, marriage and family life.

But Muslims in America never expected to be called "ignorant and intolerant" because they want public-school leaders to allow children to opt out of academic work that clashes with their faith. But that's what is happening in Montgomery County, Maryland, and a few other parts of the U.S. and Canada, where Muslim parents have been accused of cooperating with the cultural right, said Qadhi.

"That is so painful. … Truth is, we are not aligning with the political left or right," he added. "You cannot put Islam into a two-party world, where you have to choose the Democrats or the Republicans and that is that."

On the legal front, a Maryland district court recently ruled that parents do not have "a fundamental right" to avoid school activities that challenge their faith. The legal team for a coalition of Muslims, Jews, Orthodox Christians, evangelicals and others quickly asked the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the Mahmoud v. McKnight decision.

At the same time, Muslim leaders are debating a May 23 statement -- "Navigating Differences: Clarifying Sexual and Gender Ethics in Islam" -- signed by more than 200 Muslim leaders and scholars, representing a variety of Islamic traditions.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

True or false: Angry Muslim parents in Maryland have joined the Religious Right?

True or false: Angry Muslim parents in Maryland have joined the Religious Right?

Faced with a throng of worried parents, Montgomery County Councilmember Kristin Mink met with a few Muslim protestors to hear their objections to the "LGBTQ+ inclusive texts" that school teachers would be using with their children.

The Maryland Democrat was not amused by what she heard.

"This issue has unfortunately put … some, not all of course, Muslim families on the same side of an issue as white supremacists and outright bigots," said Mink, in early June. "The folks I have talked with here today, I would not put in the same category as those folks, although, you know, it's … complicated."

Public-school efforts to promote equity, she added, are "not an infringement on, you know, particular religious freedoms."

This public statement stunned a coalition of Muslims, Orthodox Christians, evangelicals, Jews and others committed to a Maryland policy that allowed students to avoid some activities focusing on family life, gender change and same-sex relationships. These parents, for starters, objected to the use of books such as "Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope," "Rainbow Revolutionaries: Fifty LGBTQ+ People Who Made History" and "Pride Puppy!", an ABC book familiarizing preschool and kindergarten children with the sights and sounds encountered when attending Pride marches.

In the spring, Montgomery County officials limited use of the opt-out policy, while releasing a notice stating that "teachers will not send home letters to inform families when inclusive books are read in the future."

Council on American-Islamic Relations leaders -- citing documents from an open-records request -- noted that officials also encouraged teachers to "scold, debate or 'disrupt the either/or thinking' of … students who express traditional viewpoints" on gender, family life and sexuality. Also, students should be instructed not to use "hurtful," "negative" words.

This parental rights battle has now moved to courtrooms, like so many other religious liberty cases that have recently reached the U.S. Supreme Court.


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Podcast: Let's play, 'Name that pope!' The Pope Francis vs. St. Pope John Paul II edition

Podcast: Let's play, 'Name that pope!' The Pope Francis vs. St. Pope John Paul II edition

Nearly a decade ago, I wrote my “On Religion” anniversary column (No. 26 at that time) about a game that Catholics seemed to be playing in cyberspace.

Some called this game, “Name that pope!” At this stage of Catholic life, early in the Pope Francis era, quite a few Catholics were frustrated with the many journalists who claimed there were striking differences — on social justice, poverty, the environment and peace — between the new pope and the previous two occupants of the Throne of St. Peter.

Pope Benedict XVI and St. Pope John Paul II were, you see, stern conservatives obsessed with clashes between centuries of Catholic moral theology and the Sexual Revolution. Pope Francis offered a kinder, more compassion vision focusing (all together now) on social justice, poverty, the environment and peace.

That old “Name that pope!” game played a pivotal role in this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (CLICK HERE to tune that in). We were talking about a new Associated Press story that ran with this headline: “Pope says some ‘backward’ conservatives in US Catholic Church have replaced faith with ideology.

Hold that thought, as we return to the earlier edition of “Name that pope!” Let’s run through this unedited chunk of that column:

Start with this quotation: "The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion."

Name that pope: That's Pope Francis, believe it or not.

Round two: "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."

Name that pope: That's Pope Benedict XVI.

Round three: "If we refuse to share what we have with the hungry and the poor, we make of our possessions a false god. How many voices in our materialist society tell us that happiness is to be found by acquiring as many possessions and luxuries as we can! ... Instead of bringing life, they bring death."


Please respect our Commenting Policy

Catholic archbishop offers some candid thoughts to a conservative Lutheran crowd

Catholic archbishop offers some candid thoughts to a conservative Lutheran crowd

Serious fasting is hard, even for a Catholic archbishop, especially when the aroma of spaghetti sauce is wafting through a church during an Italian community dinner.

San Francisco Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone learned that lesson during California's bitter battles over the meaning of "marriage," "family" and other common terms that had become controversial. But he had promised to join in 100 days of prayer, and 40 days of fasting, as part of an ecumenical coalition's efforts to defend centuries of teachings on sexuality.

It was evangelical Protestants who proposed the fast, even though traditional Catholics have practiced that discipline for centuries.

"They meant serious fasting — like not eating, or eating very little, just one meal a day. So, not just giving up dessert, you know?", said Cordileone, during this summer's "Issues, Etc." conference at Concordia University in Chicago, sponsored by Lutheran Public Radio. (This independent online network also produces my GetReligion.org podcast.)

The inside joke about Catholics "giving up dessert" hit home, even though he was speaking to Missouri Synod Lutherans.

There was a time when Lutherans would not have invited a Catholic archbishop to this kind of event, said Cordileone. There was a time when it was rare for Catholics to cooperate with evangelicals and other believers seeking common ground on moral and social issues.

"To tell you the truth, I actually long for the good old days when we used to have the luxury to fight with each other over doctrinal issues," said Cordileone, drawing laughter. "But right now, the ship is going down. … The crew cannot afford to stand on the bridge and discuss the best kind of navigation equipment to use — when the ship is going down."

The "ship," he stressed, is not the church — "It's our civilization." If clergy cannot work together to defend ancient doctrines on marriage and family, while also striving to convince their own flocks to live by them, then "our civilization is … hanging by a thread."


Please respect our Commenting Policy