On a plane back from Brazil in 2013, Pope Francis uttered his now-famous phrase, “Who am I to judge?” While his response won the instant adulation of many, retired Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson was more reticent. In an article for Time Magazine, the Episcopal Church’s first openly gay bishop lamented the fact that the Pope spoke about the issue in the context of sin and forgiveness. He stated that “not much has changed,” since the Pope clearly showed affection and acceptance for homosexual persons, but rejected homosexual acts as sinful. Robinson did not agree with the Church’s teaching on this issue, but to his credit he understood it. He went through the mental practice of making distinctions and formulated a moral argument. He expressed appreciation for the Pope’s tone but disappointment that there was no approval for gay marriage.
In the same year as Robinson’s article, Father Robert Barron (now Los Angeles Bishop Robert Barron) signaled that there was clearly a breakdown in basic moral argumentation relating to the issue of gay marriage. He highlighted how any contemporary moral argument not totally supportive of gay marriage from a preacher or writer was immediately labeled as “hate speech” or bigotry. Never mind that the Vatican, in its 1986 “Letter to Bishops on the Care of Homosexual Persons” focused on the foundational truth that all persons are created in the image of God and ought not be labeled. Never mind that the 2003 Vatican statement — reiterated that same year by the U.S. Bishops — expressed as immoral both the approval of homosexual acts and any unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.
For one to evaluate decades of clear, articulate and pastoral teaching from the Church’s Magisterium on this deeply sensitive issue and to support it is a morally tenable position. To side, on the other hand, with Gene Robinson, acknowledging the Church’s positive acceptance of all persons, but disagreeing with the Church’s teaching on homosexual acts, is also a logical (though erroneous) moral argument. But to dismiss any and all moral discourse that does not completely accept gay marriage and, instead, to portray the Church’s position as homophobic “hate speech” is illogical, unfounded and disingenuous.
The recent media coverage of this complicated moral issue was indicative of this total breakdown of logical thought. The decision to not allow someone to work for the Church whose actions and behavior publicly and overtly contradict the Church’s explicit moral teachings was immediately labeled as an act of aggression. It was portrayed as a sign that the Church does not welcome those with same-sex attraction and that the Church is not a “safe” place for those unable to embrace every facet of the Church’s teachings. Perhaps it would be beneficial for Gene Robinson to offer a mini-course on moral argumentation and journalism. In the meantime, a careful analysis of the deterioration of moral thought on this issue is essential. It also might help those who so quickly summarize the Catholic Church’s position as “homophobic” to recognize that they are engaging in the very discrimination and judgmental behavior that they purportedly rail against.
