ARTICLES
May 2001 ARTICLES
Contents © 2001
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.
Studied Ambiguity
Reply to Father Coleman's Open Letter to the Mission
By Christopher Zehnder
"I do not relish this public attention to me or the seminary where I am the President/Rector," wrote Father Gerald Coleman in an editorial published in the March 23, 2001 Catholic San Francisco, the official newspaper for the archdiocese of San Francisco. This editorial, entitled "An Open Letter To San Diego NewsNotes and Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission," appeared also as an opinion column in the April 2001 Orange County Catholic, the organ for the diocese of Orange.
The public attention to which Father Coleman referred was an article, "Damnable Falsehood," by Charles Coulombe, published in the February 2001 Mission. In that article, we detailed the correspondence Dr. Robert Lynch, special projects director for Concerned Roman Catholics of America, had with Bishop Tod Brown of Orange over two articles by Father Coleman. Bishop Brown had recommended these articles to his priests as expressive of his own opinions. In his editorial, Coleman, the rector of St. Patrick's Seminary in Menlo Park, expressed his support for the bishops' endorsement of Proposition 22, which defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and sought to clarify certain of his opinions for which Dr. Lynch had criticized him.
In his editorial, Coleman expressed his desire for a "respectful conversation with these dedicated Catholics" (presumably ourselves) and with Dr. Robert Lynch. Taking Father Coleman at his word, I called him and offered to interview him for the Mission, to give him the opportunity to clarify for our readers the orthodoxy of his positions on homosexuality and homosexual relationships. After a telephone conversation in which we discussed our differences, Father Coleman asked that I e-mail him a list of questions -- he wanted to read what I would ask him before agreeing to an interview.
Not receiving a reply after two days, I e-mailed Father Coleman again: did he agree to the interview? Regretfully, he did not. I e-mailed him again, asking him in what other ways we could pursue a dialogue. Coleman never replied.
In his "Open Letter," Father Coleman claimed that the Mission and Dr. Lynch "strongly opposed" his view on the "difference between sacramental and non-sacramental marriage." As I pointed out to Father Coleman, neither Dr. Lynch nor we opposed this distinction; rather, we asked what was meant by the statement, "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." In "Damnable Falsehood" we noted that Coleman speaks about "long-term, committed and loving relationships, named by certain segments of our society as domestic partnership," in the context of "non-sacramental bonds." "Do you," I asked Coleman in my e-mail letter, "think such homosexual relationships fall under [the] category of non-sacramental bonds?"
Father Richard Perozich, a priest in San Diego who works with Courage, an orthodox Catholic ministry to homosexuals, told me that the Church only speaks of a non-sacramental bond in relation to the marriage of non-Christians. This is because, he said, quoting Canon Law, of the "very nature" of marriage -- its ordination "to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children." Whether sacramental or not, in a "valid marriage there arises between the spouses a bond which of its own nature is permanent and exclusive." This bond is strengthened by the sacrament, consecrating the married for the "duties and dignity of their state."
But if the Church says nothing about non-sacramental "bonds" between homosexuals, Father Coleman does. In his editorial, though, Coleman adds an important qualifier. "When I speak of 'committed life-long homosexual relationships,' I am speaking of chaste unions. I can see that I didn't make this point clear in the articles being attacked." Indeed, he didn't, and one wonders why he left out the important qualifier, "chaste."
Yet, a more important question occurs to one -- what does Coleman mean by "chaste"? After all, we say faithful married couples are "chaste." In my e-mail letter to Coleman, I asked him: "By 'chaste' do you mean that the two homosexuals refrain entirely from any genital activity, or do you mean that they engage in genital activity only with each other?" Coleman's editorial is unclear on this point, though he associates chaste with "committed" when he writes of "committed (i.e., chaste) life-long homosexual partnerships." If chastity is the same thing as commitment, then it need not entail abstaining from genital activity.
As Doctor Joseph Nicolosi, a Los Angeles psychologist who works in reparative therapy with homosexuals, said to me, if Coleman equates "chaste" with "celibate," "we're only talking about friendship. We're talking about roommates." Such a relationship, said Nicolosi, would be no different from that of "two heterosexual men who are living together and who, for whatever reason, see no future marriage for themselves."
Yet, Coleman thinks there is a difference, and to support his position, he quotes the 1973 document of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, "Principles to Guide Confessors in Questions of Homosexuality." According to Coleman, "these 'Principles' urge a confessor to encourage the 'permanent' homosexual individual to form a stable relationship 'with another homosexual individual,' and conclude, 'If a homosexual has progressed under the direction of a confessor but in the effort to develop a stable relationship with a given person has occasionally fallen into a sin of impurity, he should be absolved and instructed to take measures to avoid the elements which lead to sin without breaking off a friendship which has helped him grow as a person.'"
It is not clear from this quotation that the bishops are speaking about homosexual roommates, but only about two homosexual friends. But what if the bishops are advising a roommate situation between two homosexuals? "I think they are putting them in a situation of temptation," said Nicolosi. "Right now I am working almost exclusively with homosexuals. I would say 98 percent of my caseload for the last five years have been homosexually-oriented men, and I would say what's healthy for them is not to be rooming and attempting to be chaste with another homosexually-oriented man, but to live with heterosexual men. It should be a mixed group because there will be less likelihood of acting out."
The temptation to "act out" is great for homosexual men, for, said Nicolosi, the sex-drive is stronger in homosexuals. "Heterosexual men have less sex than homosexual men -- including masturbation," said Nicolosi. "Why is this? Because, for the heterosexual man, sex is the satisfaction of his sexual drive; for the homosexually-oriented man, because his orientation derives from a developmental disorder, it is an attempt to get more than just sexual gratification. He's trying to find himself. It's a search for identity, it's a search for belonging, it's a search for healing the father wound, it's a way of gratifying his narcissism -- so there are many more drives beyond sexual gratification than what the heterosexual man has." The case is similar for lesbians, said Nicolosi: "We can point to at least one study which shows that lesbians are more sexually promiscuous outside their relationships than heterosexual women."
Not only does Coleman believe in the possibility of "committed, chaste, life-long unions" between homosexual persons, he believes such partnerships should receive civil recognition. "Here I rely," he wrote in the editorial, "on Archbishop Levada's approach to San Francisco's 'Non-Discrimination in Contracts Ordinance': 'an employee may designate a legally domiciled member of the employee's household as being eligible for spousal equivalent benefits.'"
If Coleman was truly saying that civil recognition should be given to "committed life-long homosexual unions" that are "chaste," then (assuming that by chaste he means "celibate") he is calling for civil recognition for a small number of unions, indeed. Are not chaste unions among homosexuals the exception, rather than the rule? I asked Coleman. When I asked Dr. Nicolosi the same question, he told me he thought they were the exception. If this is the case, and since it would be impossible for the government to determine whether any homosexual couple were chaste, would not civil recognition, then, constitute a recognition by society of relationships characterized by immoral genital union, giving them, as Coleman said, "an important status, deserving our respect and protection"?
Father Perozich noted that Rome has spoken against legal recognition of homosexual unions. In a statement issued on July 22, 1992, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote of "a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law." The congregation said that "strict attention should be paid to the single provisions of proposed measures. How would they effect adoption or foster care? Would they protect homosexual acts, public or private? Do they confer equivalent family status on homosexual unions, for example, in respect to public housing or by entitling the homosexual partner to the privileges of employment which could include such things as 'family' participation in the health benefits given to employees?" Father Perozich also said, "the pope has spoken directly on homosexual unions," calling the granting to homosexual couples the same rights in taxation, benefits, and child-rearing as those accorded to married couples an attack against the family institution.
In his editorial, Coleman wrote that the Mission and Dr. Lynch "believe that I teach that homosexuality itself is not first of all directed to immoral activity." Coleman doesn't disabuse us of this belief, but rather confirms it. "I have tried carefully to explain," continued Coleman, "that homosexuality per se is at a certain level not different from heterosexuality." While Dr. Lynch and the Los Angeles Mission "seem to presume that homosexual people are primarily/exclusively pushed toward immoral activity," we really "fail to distinguish the teaching in the 1996 CDF [Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith] Letter to the Bishops. On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons: that the homosexual inclination is an 'objective disorder.'"
This is a strange assertion, for the Mission has often affirmed the Church's teaching that the homosexual inclination is an objective disorder. What we haven't affirmed is what seems to be Coleman's peculiar interpretation of this teaching -- that homosexuality, being an objective disorder, is thereby not a personal disorder. In his editorial, Coleman goes on to quote a passage from Educational Guidance in Human Love, a 1983 document of the Congregation for Catholic Education: "Sexuality is a fundamental component of personality, one of its modes of being. an integral part of the development of the personality and of its educative process."
In my questions to Coleman, I noted that the passage in question refers, not to homosexuality, but to sexuality per se. In fact, when treating the subject of homosexuality, far from affirming that "homosexuality is per se at a certain level not different from heterosexuality," the document calls the inclination unnatural, rooted in a fundamental disorientation of the human person.
Since I could get no answers from Coleman, I asked Nicolosi what Coleman and others could possibly mean when they insist that homosexuality transcends the same-sex attraction? "They're purposely vague," said Nicolosi. "What they can only be talking about is same-sex attraction; in other words, even if I don't act it out, I have sexual attraction for members of the same sex. That can be the only thing they are referring to. If that is, in fact, what we are talking about, then we have to keep in mind that the homosexual inclination is an intrinsic disorder. One of the ways they want to dilute Church teachings is to put homosexuality on a par with heterosexuality -- heterosexuals, they say, cannot engage in heterosexual behavior except within marriage, and homosexuals have to live by the same guidelines. [The only difference, they say, between homosexuals and heterosexuals] is the fact that Church does not recognize gay marriages."
The Church's teaching against homosexual marriage, said Nicolosi, is not some legal prohibition, but is rooted in her understanding of human nature. "When the heterosexual man walks down the street, and he feels an attraction to a woman, that is normal and natural," said Nicolosi. "That is understood as his potential for married life, if directed properly. But when a man walks down the street and feels a sexual attraction for another man, there is no place for that. It's not just because the Church doesn't recognize homosexual marriage, but because such marriage has no place in nature."
But don't homosexuals, as some claim, have special qualities that distinguish them from heterosexuals? "Now you are going into pro-gay literature," said Nicolosi, "where they say things like, 'we have a special sentiment, we have a special sensitivity, we have a unique sensibility; we' re artistic.' There's this whole gay literature where you have the 'breeders ' -- they're the worker bees; then you have the queen bees who are more sensitive, more artistic, more intuitive, more into the arts, more into the finer things. You see this going all the way back to Oscar Wilde, where the homosexual sensibility is seen as more exquisite. Of course, this is not said clearly in someone like Coleman's writing to a Catholic newspaper; but he and Father Peter Liuzzi are hinting at it. Liuzzi makes reference to the special gifts of our 'gay' Catholics -- what are these special gifts? Are we talking about floral arrangements on the altar? It's very vague. Of course, if you accept their vague premise, then you are opening the door to the more detailed explanation of exactly what those sensibilities are."
Indeed, Coleman is vague, but his statements seem to point to one conclusion -- that homosexuality is in itself not an objective disorder -- for how can an inclination which is not "per se at a certain level" any different from heterosexuality be disordered in its objective nature? It seems we may number Coleman's opinions among those "programmes" which, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has warned (in Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons), "seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful."