Independent: Bishop Mario Grech’s sermon of 20 August

http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=74588
1.9.8; by Joseph Carmel Chetcuti

Homosexuality has rattled the Roman Catholic Church. Since the Stonewall Riots of 1969, gay men and lesbians have discovered the freedom to be who they are. Gay liberation has devastated the Roman Catholic priesthood and emptied the Church’s convents and monasteries. Gay men and lesbians have exposed the Church’s hypocrisy, complicity and duplicity. In the second half of the 20th century, homosexuality has emerged as the test case for Christian sexual ethics.

I have at hand a transcript of a sermon that Monsignor Mario Grech, Bishop of Gozo, is reported to have delivered on 20 August on the occasion of the Pauline Year. In part, the bishop is reported as saying:

(Free translation) “When he speaks about the limits of human freedom, Paul of Tarsus gave some examples which are very topical for us today in the sexuality sphere, he speaks of lust, adultery and homosexuality...”

Opinions on what constitutes liberty vary. Putting aside the question of whether St Paul is liberty’s best and most relevant exponent, the Pauline concept of liberty is restrictive and runs contrary to what most men and women of goodwill nowadays regard as basic decent standards of liberty. Put simply, St Paul’s fitness to make proclamations on liberty take a dive given that he had no problem with one person owning another as a piece of property: see Ephesians 6: 5-9; 1 Timothy 6: 1-2, Titus 2: 9-10 and Colossians 3: 22-4:1.

In the sermon, Monsignor Grech repeats the error of the Pastoral Letter of 31 December 1972, an error that had its origin in that Pastoral Letter’s concurrent treatment of homosexuality and adultery. Paragraph 2357 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church slips into a similar blunder: “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex”. (For the record: no, homosexuality is not just about relations.)

Monsignor Grech’s reference to “homosexuality”, like that of the 1972 Pastoral Letter and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is off beam. Homosexual orientation is about an individual’s “being and ... personality”, defining him or her in a way that relations, feelings or actions do not. Not all homosexuals are practising homosexuals, and homosexuals do not have ownership of what the Catechism of the Catholic Church calls “homosexual acts”, presumably anal and oral sex, and masturbation. These acts are enjoyed by people of all sexual orientations and between people of the same or different gender, a fact that may come as a surprise to an unmarried celibate like Monsignor Grech.

Monsignor Grech would be well advised to consult the Catechism of the Catholic Church (2357) that depicts “homosexual acts (not homosexuality as) intrinsically disordered”. So I ask Monsignor Grech: If the Roman Catholic Church is really concerned with “sinful” sexual acts, why is it so preoccupied with the gender of the “object choice”? And if the Roman Catholic Church thinks it has a right to concern itself with the gender of the “object choice”, I further ask him: Why is this so? Why does anal or oral sex or masturbation between persons of different gender not attract the same degree of Church censure?

The distinction between sexual orientation and sexual acts is fundamental to Roman Catholic moral theology. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “(Homosexuals) must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity.” I wonder, therefore, why Monsignor Grech blurs this distinction and whether this is his queer way of showing respect, compassion and sensitivity towards gay men and lesbians.

Most reputable theologians (not those of the Bible-bashing bastard variety) recognise that St Paul’s treatment of some “homosexual acts” occurs in the context of lust, free choice and a possible relationship to idolatry; as such, he says nothing about caring, homosexual relationships. We simply do not know and have no way of knowing what St Paul would have thought of such relationships. Monsignor Grech may speculate on such matters but his speculation is not the “word of God”. The Canon of Scripture closed a long time ago.

The biblical and theological tradition surrounding homosexuality is far more complex than Monsignor Grech and men like him would like to have us believe. Anyone who thinks that “absolute truth” can be located in books written between 2,000 and 3,000 years ago is fooling him or herself and, in the case of an ordinary like Monsignor Grech, pulling the wool over the eyes of the faithful (not inappropriately labelled “fidili” in Maltese). However, if Monsignor Grech wants to engage in a rational and informed discussion on homosexuality by quoting Scripture, may I respectfully suggest that he adopts a threefold approach that takes account of:

1. the historical, political, cultural, religious and social context in which Scripture was written;

2. Subsequent scientific developments of which there have been many; and

3. a people of God that has reached maturity.

In his sermon of 20 August, Monsignor Grech fails miserably on all three. Noting Monsignor Grech’s zeal to evangelise, may I respectfully suggest that he next deliver a sermon on paedophilia, particularly to the Roman Catholic clergy in his diocese, and how this abuse has destroyed many families. I wonder what St Paul had to say about this evil? Or was he, too, part of the grand conspiracy of silence?

My final message to Monsignor Grech and other celibate men and women is this: the bedroom of the nation and what homosexuals, heterosexuals and bisexuals do in their bedroom (or for that matter “bedrooms”) is not the business of celibate men and women of unknown sexuality.


Mr Chetcuti is a Barrister and Solicitor.

---
See related articles here:

It-Torċa: Omelija ta’ l-Isqof t’Għawdex tqajjem kontroversja - Omosesswali u separati jħossuhom offiżi

IL-VERA LIBERTÀ minn Mons. Mario Grech Isqof ta' Għawdex