ARTICLES
February 2001 ARTICLES
Contents © 2001
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
Damnable Falsehood
Bishop Brown's Nuances on Domestic Partnerships
By Charles A. Coulombe
It all seemed simple and straight-forward. In March 2000, the voters of the state of California approved Proposition 22, which added one sentence to the California Constitution: "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The measure was an effort to forestall any attempt at bringing homosexual marriage into this state, should any of the other 49 accept it. The state's Catholic bishops endorsed Proposition 22.
It seemed simple and straightforward; but, of course, there was a great deal of discussion on the matter. During the bitter campaign, Bishop Tod Brown, on February 15, 2000, sent a terse memo with two attachments to the priests of the diocese of Orange. The bishop's message read: "attached are two articles Moral Theology and Is Proposition 22 Discriminatory?, by Father Gerald D. Coleman, SS., regarding the marriage initiative, which expresses very well my own thoughts on this subject. I hope you will find them helpful to you."
Coleman wrote his piece in reply to an article in the January 18, 2000 San Jose Valley Catholic, the official mouthpiece of that diocese, in which one Michael Quieto, a senior at Gonzaga University in Spokane, attacked Proposition 22. Coleman outlined Quieto's major points -- that the initiative gave homosexuals the message that Californians do not accept them; that civil marriage is separate and distinct from sacramental marriage, which voters ought not to be able to affect; and that the issue is not marriage but equal access to legal protection, denial of such access being discrimination.
Father Coleman defended the California bishops' support of Proposition 22 in a most interesting way. After seconding Quieto's assertion that the Church strongly supports homosexual people, and citing the catechism in this regard -- "the Catechism of the Catholic Church is clear the homosexuality is not a choice and homosexual persons 'must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard must be avoided.' (no. 2358)." -- Father Coleman went on to consider what he considered the real controversy. "The moral question, then, is clear," wrote Coleman. "Can one simultaneously affirm authentic respect and sensitivity toward homosexual persons and hold that marriage is a union only between a man and a woman?"
Mentioning its "instructive and helpful" quality, Father Coleman quotes canon law's definition of marriage as being a sacramental union ordained by Christ between a man and woman. He then tells us that "Jesus did not change the meaning of marriage. Jesus did not create a sacramental bond that evaluates a non-sacramental bond as unworthy or undignified. Jesus merely pointed out that the marital union, when celebrated by two Christians, bears the additional meaning of a sacrament, a living sign of the unique marriage which Jesus has established with His Church." Father Coleman asserts that such a union, which brings both mutual benefit and the rearing of children, must be protected by Church and state. Thus Proposition 22 is neither a way of demeaning homosexuals nor of compressing civil and sacramental marriage; rather it is a legitimate defense of marriage through defining it.
Still, one might wonder what Coleman meant about Jesus not creating "a sacramental bond that evaluates a non-sacramental bond as unworthy or undignified." In the next two paragraphs he explained himself:
"Some homosexual persons," wrote Coleman, "have shown that it is possible to enter into long-term, committed and loving relationships, named by certain segments of our society as domestic partnership.
"I see no moral reason why civil law could not in some fashion recognize these faithful and loving unions with clear and specified benefits. These unions would then be recognized by society as sustaining an important status deserving our respect and protection. I believe that this possibility could be pursued without equating such unions with marriage, and without in any way demeaning our needed respect and protection for the institution of marriage."
Of course, Father Coleman was not unaware that his ideas would face opposition. "This proposal will not be acceptable to those who believe that all homosexual people are immoral and who believe that the Church condemns homosexual persons," he continued. But these latter are mistaken, he assures us: "The Church's record on this point is clear and transparent, as evidenced in the citation from the Catechism. The biblical condemnation of homosexual acts should not be translated as a condemnation of homosexual people." After citing Vatican II on the importance of marriage, he concluded by reiterating the need to both support Proposition 22 and foster "respect, compassion, sensitivity and non-discrimination toward our homosexual brothers and sisters."
Bishop Brown's endorsement of these views came at rather a strange time for the Orange diocese. Rumors about Father Rod Stephens, head of the catechumenate and evangelization departments of the diocese and his supposed openly homosexual lifestyle were flying around (later in the year Father Stephens and his alleged relationship would be the focus of an article in the St. Paul, Minnesota based Catholic newspaper, The Wanderer). In this heady atmosphere, when the bishop's memo leaked out, it was to be expected to meet with a strong reaction.
On May 31, 2000, Dr. Robert Lynch, special projects director for Concerned Roman Catholics of America, sent Bishop Brown a letter. Reminding the bishop of his endorsement of Father Coleman's article, he then quoted to Brown the paragraphs advocating legal recognition of some form of homosexual union. Lynch then commented in rather blunt language:
"These assertions are grotesque and completely contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. The long-term, committed and loving homosexual relationships that Coleman sees no moral reason for not recognizing in civil law with certain rights and obligations are in fact unions based upon intrinsically disordered acts condemned by the Church. I am troubled that you as the ordinary of the Diocese of Orange not only sent, but also recommended to all priests in your jurisdiction, an article that clearly contradicts the teachings of the Catholic Church and promotes false moral teachings in a substantial matter; that you told them this article containing the heretical assertions noted above and another article 'expresses [sic] very well my own thoughts on this subject,' and that you hoped they 'will find them helpful.'
"I am also troubled by the fact," continued Lynch, "that your staff, after sending me copies of Coleman's two articles, refused to send me a copy of your cover memorandum, claiming that communications between you and your priests are not for dissemination to the laity. This fact and the fact that Coleman's article. and your approval of same to date have not been published or referred to in any issue of the diocese of Orange Bulletin lead me to conclude that you intended to keep your approval of his article and assertions hidden from your lay followers.
"I respectfully request that you retract or clarify your recommendation of Coleman's article. to your priests as soon as possible."
Bishop Brown addressed Lynch's concerns in his reply of June 26: "I am sorry," wrote Brown, "that you are disturbed and perplexed in regards to the subject of your letter. You should know that Father Gerald Coleman's articles appeared in the archdiocesan San Francisco Catholic. Father Coleman is a highly regarded and respected theologian in the United States.
"While the church is very clear regarding the immorality of an active homosexual life, the civic and civil issues are very complex and require nuance. You can be assured that I have not nor will approve of active homosexual life styles. I am quite confident that our clergy here in the Diocese of Orange is of the same [sic]."
If the bishop intended his words to soothe Dr. Lynch, they failed. In a blistering reply via certified mail on July 25, Lynch declared, "every statement of substance contained in your reply letter dated June 26, 2000, is false, misleading, incorrect, and/or contradicts your other statements and actions." He then proceeded to dissect each of Bishop Brown's assertions in that letter.
Having pointed out that Father Coleman's article was a mere guest commentary in the San Francisco paper, with no editorial approbation, Dr. Lynch went on to challenge Brown's statement that Father Coleman is a "highly regarded and respected theologian." "What I and many informed Catholics know," wrote Lynch, "and you as a prelate of the Catholic Church in the United States should certainly know, is that Coleman is a well-known dissenter from Church teaching on homosexuality, a major spokesman for homosexual agitprop, and a staunch supporter of long-term, committed and loving homosexual relationships. With such credentials, and considering his advocacy of heresy in the subject articles and other articles and speeches of late, you as a prelate had a sacred duty to be especially cautious in countenancing his ideas and writings in this area and certainly not to endorse and/or recommend any of his heretical assertions to your priests or anyone else for that matter."
The bishop's contention that "the civic and civil issues are very complex and require nuance," particularly enraged Lynch. "What nuance empowered you, a prelate of the Catholic Church, to endorse and recommend to all your priests the recognition, protection, respect and assistance in civil law of intrinsically disordered acts condemned by the Church? What nuance authorized you, a successor to the apostles charged with the sacred duty to teach true Catholic morality in your diocese, to disregard recent official and public instructions to bishops published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of Pope John Paul II, forbidding the support and endorsement of civil law recognizing homosexual activity? To disregard these same instructions charging bishops with the grave responsibility to see to it that their priests are rightly informed to provide pastoral care in accord with true Church teaching for homosexual persons in their dioceses?"
But Bishop Brown's declaration that he does not endorse active homosexual lifestyles drew the most of Dr. Lynch's ire. He declared the bishop's statement to be a "damnable falsehood" for two reasons. The first was that "you have endorsed Coleman's heretical assertions involving the recognition, protection, respect and assistance of long-standing, committed and loving homosexual unions and relationships and wholeheartedly recommended them to all your priests."
The second reason was yet more damning. "From the time of your appointment as the bishop of Orange in September 1998 to date, you permitted [Father Rod] Stephens to continue to live what is evidently a notorious, long-term, and committed homosexual lifestyle. You also rewarded him by retaining him as director of the catechumenate and evangelization departments of the diocese and also assigning him as a director of the worship department and the Jubilee 2000 project, and as a member of the Catechumenate Advisory Board, the Liturgical Commission, and the Building and Renovation Committee. of the diocese." Dr. Lynch further claimed that "most if not all" of the priests of Orange either approved or tolerated Father Stephens' lifestyle; he also maintained that this situation had existed under Bishop Brown's predecessors, Bishops William R. Johnson and Norman F. McFarland.
While Dr. Lynch once more called upon the bishop to retract his approbation of Father Coleman's work, no answer was forthcoming from the chancery. At last, on August 28, Concerned Roman Catholics of America sent a memorandum to all priests in the Orange diocese, together with copies of all the relevant material. They asked the priests to help them to get the bishop to end his support for Coleman. When this tactic brought not a peep from the bishop, on December 1 the organization sent a letter to Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, the Apostolic Pro-Nuncio in Washington, asking him to direct Bishop Brown to issue a written retraction of his endorsement of Father Coleman's work within 60 days. We shall see what happens.
Calls to Monsignor Lawrence J. Baird, Orange diocesan spokeman, were not returned.