Pope Francis has insisted several times on the fact that at the root of the phenomenon of abuse is clericalism, a sort of abuse of power, leaving out the factor of homosexuality in the clergy. Even the journalists of the papal court are doing their best to convince everyone that homosexuality has nothing to do with it, even if the data say exactly the opposite.One issue that I haven't been able to reason through is how the synod, if it addresses it at all, will deal with the question of "consensual" same-sex activity, at what age, and under what circumstances, and how this relates to traditional Church teaching on the sixth commandment as it relates to heterosexual marriage.Among the four components of the organizing committee stands out the archbishop of Chicago, Cardinal Blase Cupich, much discussed both for his close friendship with the former cardinal Theodore McCarrick and for statements that seem to diminish the emergency created by the crisis for sexual abuse. At the meeting of American bishops last week in Baltimore, Cupich was the one who led the faction that managed to prevent the launch of a truth commission on what happened; in particular, Cupich - like the Pope - is opposed to the presence of lay people in the Commission of Inquiry, as advocated by the presidency of the US Episcopal Conference and by Cardinal Sean O'Malley, president of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Children, blatantly excluded from the list of the organizers of the February meeting.
Even the appointment of Cupich is a serious matter, given the contiguity with McCarrick, but moreover to strengthen the position of Cardinal Cupich is also another appointment, that of the Indian Cardinal Oswald Gracias, of Mumbay, who firmly supports the right to gay marriages and the need to change the language of the Church regarding homosexuality.
With a similar team in charge of operations, it is clear that we want to avoid the issue of homosexuality in the clergy as a phenomenon to be monitored in terms of preventing abuse. There is also the risk in the position of those who maintain that the acceptance of homosexuality in the clergy would be useful to avoid sexual abuse.
The basic problem is that same-sex activity bypasses the potential for procreation. This in turn bypasses Humanae Vitae and much else. So if you are allowing in some way for "consensual" same-sex activity, you're creating a whole separate category for sexual activity unrelated to procreation.
In that case, why forbid artificial contraception? But if the implication in Cupich's Baltimore remarks on "consensual" is that any same-sex activity by priests over the age of consent is outside the question under review, why continue to forbid fornication between men and women? Is it worse for a priest to have a woman concubine than to have a gay boyfriend?
For instance, how does this relate to former Los Angeles auxiliary bishop Gabino Zavala, who resigned under those circumstances in 2012:
Zavala informed the archbishop last month that he had fathered two children who live with their mother in another state, Gomez said in a letter to the archdiocese's approximately 5 million Catholics. The archbishop said Zavala told him that he had submitted his resignation to the pope.So, must every bishop or auxiliary with a gay boyfriend living either in the rectory or in another state resign? Apparently not, but a bishop or auxiliary with a concubine apparently must, and the Holy Father won't dither over whether to accept the resignation, either."Since that time, he has not been in ministry and will be living privately," the archbishop said in the letter, which was posted on a Catholic blog.
Why the difference, or will we reform Church teaching in this matter?
