I must confess to a certain unease with the recent reflection of Bishop Paul Dempsey of Achonry in the way it deals with the recent CDF statement regarding the blessing of unions of persons of the same sex. As a priest in ministry, I thought the CDF document a very useful and straighforward clarification on a live question that is attracting a lot of debate. I appreciate that not all my brother priests think the same way for a variety of reasons, and I don't feel especially well-qualified to enter into the nuances of the debate. However, I know enough about theology and about the way the Church works to know that when the Pope himself approves a decision of the CDF on a topic that is being widely discussed and that he knows will be considered controversial, then it's deserving of particular respect. There are important issues here and the Successor of Peter has made his voice heard. I don't buy into the whole narriative of this being the CDF hoodwinking the Pope or this simply being the voice of the Curia setting itself against some imaginary Church of the future. Cardinal Ladaria is a well-respected theologian, a man of great meekness and fidelity, and a Jesuit. I can think of few people less likely to try and deceive the Pope. Finally - and this is something I'm adding as a revision to this blogpost, Donum Veritatis clarifies that CDF documents approved by the Pope share explicity in his teaching authority.
18. The Roman Pontiff fulfills his universal mission with the help of the various bodies of the Roman Curia and in particular with that of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in matters of doctrine and morals. Consequently, the documents issued by this Congregation expressly approved by the Pope participate in the ordinary magisterium of the successor of Peter.(18)
I do appreciate that in many cultures bringing people to an understanding of the Church's moral teachings and vision of the family is a challenge. And there will be cases where what looks like harsh language may need to be explained in gentler terms, particularly when strong language can lead to aggression against individuals and groups. However, there is also a danger that we soften our language to such an extent that fundamental moral truths are overlooked. The Irish Church can hardly be accused of breathing fire over the past few decades.
Anyway, I'll confine my commentary about Bishop Dempsey's reflection to two precise points which make me uneasy. I'm confused by the fact that he seems to say that the language used by the Church is more important than the realities to which the language refers. I can't quite believe that he can mean that, but he certainly seems to give that impression. He writes, "Some agree with what the Church proclaims as truth, others do not. The deeper problem arises in the sphere of language, at best it is experienced as cold and distant, at worst hurtful and offensive." I can't wrap my head around how the question of language is "deeper" than the issue of whether the Church is believed or not. I'm not going to understate the significance of language - in some senses any use of language is inadequate to the expression of dogmatic truth, but making the eirenic use of language more important than the realities to which language refers strikes me as bad theology. The good use of language is essential to the teaching of moral truths, but it cannot be seen as more imporant than those truths itself.
I'm reminded of the words of St John Henry Newman when he reflected on the dangers of the Church being too slippery in her use of language: "If the Church would be vigorous and influential, it must be decided and plain-spoken in its doctrine, and must regard its faith rather as a character of mind than as a notion. To attempt comprehensions of opinion, amiable as the motive frequently is, is to mistake arrangements of words, which have no existence except on paper, for habits which are realities; and ingenious generalizations of discordant sentiments for that practical agreement which alone can lead to co-operation. We may indeed artificially classify light and darkness under one term or formula; but nature has her own fixed courses, and unites mankind by the sympathy of moral character, not by those forced resemblances which the imagination singles out at pleasure even in the most promiscuous collection of materials. However plausible may be the veil thus thrown over heterogeneous doctrines, the flimsy artifice is discomposed so soon as the principles beneath it are called upon to move and act." While the Church MUST be careful and kind in her language, I can't help thinking that on this hot-button issue, the issue of language is often exploited by those who dissent from the Church's teaching to pressurise those who are committed to it. If we accept Bishop Dempsey's apparent premise that language is the deeper question, then we run the risk of being able to say nothing at all!
The second issue that worries me is Bishop Dempsey's use of a statement by the Belgian Bishop Johann Bonny. He is reported as saying, with reference to the Synod on the Family: “there were frequent discussions about appropriate rituals and gestures to include homosexual couples, including in the liturgical sphere. Naturally, this occurred with respect for the theologically and pastoral distinction between a sacramental marriage and the blessing of a relationship. The majority of the synod fathers did not choose a black and white liturgical approach or an all-or-nothing model.”
Now, Bonny is not the man I would have chosen to quote on this issue, given how outspoken he was in opposition to the statement. If one quotes part of what he says as having authority, then I think there's a responsibility to distance oneself from the more incendiary parts of his statement. Anyway, if I wanted to know what the Synod said, I would actually look at the documents of the Synod rather than the recollections of a participant who has his own idiosyncratic position. What did the Final Report of the Synod actually say?
76. The Church’s attitude is like that of her Master, who offers his boundless love to every person without exception (cf. MV, 12). To families with homosexual members, the Church reiterates that every person, regardless of sexual orientation, ought to be respected in his/her dignity and received with respect, while carefully avoiding “every sign of unjust discrimination” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons, 4). Specific attention is given to guiding families with homosexual members. Regarding proposals to place unions of homosexual persons on the same level as marriage, “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family” (ibid). In every way, the Synod maintains as completely unacceptable that local Churches be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies link financial aid to poor countries to the introduction of laws to establish “marriage” between people of the same sex.
When the Synod uses the words about these unions not being "even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family" - making the words of a previous CDF declaration her own - she sounds a lot more like Pope Francis and the CDF than Bishop Bonny. The Holy Father, incidentally, repeats the same language in Amoris Laetitiae 251. Let us not be gaslit into believing that there's an alternative Synodal or Papal Magisterium on this point.
I'm sure this debate will go on - as all debates do. However, let them at least proceed in a manner that is theologically responsible and that reflects the reality of what the Church actually teaches.
