From: buckmr@rpi.edu (Ron Buckmire)
Newsgroups: soc.motss,alt.politics.homosexuality
Subject: PHOBE ALERT: TEXT of Vatican Statement on Homosexuality
Date: 2 Sep 92 02:07:18 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA23996; Tue, 1 Sep 92 19:01:32 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA01821; Tue, 1 Sep 92 19:01:28 -0700
X-Received: from sub.its.rpi.edu (marcus.its.rpi.edu) by rpi.edu (4.1/SMHUB32);id AA11179; Tue, 1 Sep 92 21:13:44 EDT for alt.politics.homosexuality.usenet@decwrl.dec.com
X-Received: by sub.its.rpi.edu (AIX 3.1/UCB 5.61/RPI-ITS-SUB13-AIXV3);id AA37864; Tue, 1 Sep 92 21:07:21 -0400 for bisexu-l@brownvm.brown.edu@rpi.edu
X-To: soc.motss.usenet, alt.politics.homosexuality.usenet
X-Cc: gaynet@athena.mit.edu

Brian Nunes (from THIS WAY OUT) typed in:
 
      Some Considerations Concerning the Catholic Response
                 to Legislative Proposals on the
            Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons
 
 
                            Foreword
 
     Recently, legislation had been proposed in some American
states which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation illegal.  In some Italian cities, municipal
authorities have made public housing available to homosexual (and
unmarried heterosexual) couples.  Such initiatives, even where
they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than
condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may
in fact have a negative impact on the family and society.  Such
things as the adoption of children, the hiring and firing of
teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords'
legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example,
are often implicated.
     While it would be impossible to foresee and respond to every
eventuality in respect to legislative proposals in this area,
these observations will try to identify some principles and
distinctions of a general nature which should be taken into
consideration by the conscientious Catholic legislator, voter, or
Church authority who is confronted with such issues.
     The first section will recall relevant passages from the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's ``Letter to the
Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual
Person'' of 1986.  The second section will deal with the
applications.
 
         I. Relevant Passages from the CDF's ``Letter''
 
1.  The Letter recalls that the CDF's ``Declaration on Certain
Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics'' of 1975 ``took note of the
distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or
tendency and individual homosexual actions,'' the latter which
are ``intrinsically disordered'' and ``in no case to be approved
of'' (no. 3).
 
2.  Since ``[i]n the discussion which followed the publication of
the (above-mentioned) Declaration ..., an overly benign
interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some
going so far as to call it neutral, or even good,'' the Letter
goes on to clarify:  ``Although the particular inclination of the
homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong
tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the
inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be
directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led
to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual
activity is a morally acceptable option.  It is not'' (no. 3).
 
3.  ``As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents
one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the
creative wisdom of God.  The Church, in rejecting erroneous
opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather
defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and
authentically understood'' (no. 7).
 
4.  In reference to the homosexual movement, the Letter states:
``One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or
reservations about homosexual people, their activity and
lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination''
(no. 9).
 
5.  ``There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the
Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her
pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws.  This is
done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that
homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an
entirely good, thing.  Even when the practice of homosexuality
may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number
of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider
the magnitude of the risks involved'' (no. 9).
 
6.  ``She (the Church) is also aware that the view that
homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the
sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on
society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family
and puts them in jeopardy'' (no. 9).
 
7.  ``It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are
the object of violent malice in speech or in action.  Such
treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors
wherever it occurs.  It reveals a kind of disregard for others
which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy
society.  The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be
respected in word, in action and in law.
    But the proper reaction to crimes committed against
homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual
condition is not disordered.  When such a claim is made and when
homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil
legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one as
any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large
should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices
gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase''
(no. 10).
 
8.  ``What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and
demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual
persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable.
What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which
characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be
recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well''
(no. 11).
 
9.  ``In assessing proposed legislation, the Bishops should keep
as their uppermost concern the responsibility to defend and
promote family life'' (no. 17).
 
                        II. Applications
 
10.  ``Sexual orientation'' does not constitute a quality
comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-
discrimination.  Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an
objective disorder (cf. ``Letter,'' no. 3).
11.  There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to
take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the
consignment of children to adoption or foster care, in employment
of teachers or coaches, and in military recruitment.
 
12.  Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights
as all persons including that of not being treated in a manner
which offends their personal dignity (cf. no. 10).  Among other
rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc.
Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute.  They can be
legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct.
This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory.  This would
obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but
even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill.
Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of
rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill
persons, in order to protect the common good.
 
13.  Including ``homosexual orientation'' among the
considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to
discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a
positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-
called affirmative action, the filling of quotas in hiring
practices.  This is all the more mistaken since there is no right
to homosexuality (cf. no. 10) which therefore should not form the
judicial basis for claims.  The passage from the recognition of
homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to
discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the
legislative protection of homosexuality.  A person's
homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged
discrimination and thus the exercise of rights would be defended
precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead
of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.
 
14.  The ``sexual orientation'' of a person is not comparable to
race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given
above which warrants attention.  An individual's sexual
orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly
identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some
overt behavior manifests it.  As a rule, the majority of
homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do
not want or see no reason for their sexual orientation to become
public knowledge.  Hence the problem of discrimination in terms
of employment, housing, etc. does not arise.
     Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be
precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be
``either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing''
(cf. no. 3), and hence worthy of public approval.  It is from
this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to
``manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned
support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and
laws'' (cf. no. 5), those who use the tactic of protesting that
``any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual
people ... are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination''
(cf. no. 9).
 
15.  Since in assessing proposed legislation uppermost concern
should be given to the responsibility to defend and promote family 
life (cf. no. 17), most careful attention should be paid
to the single provisions of proposed measures.  How would they
effect [sic] 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 might include ``family''
participation in the health benefits given to employees
(cf. no. 9)?
 
16.  Finally, since a matter of the common good is concerned, it
is inappropriate for Church authorities to endorse or remain
neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions
to Church organizations and institutions.  The Church has the
responsibility to promote the public morality of the entire civil
society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to
protect herself from the application of harmful laws
(cf. no. 17).
 
(END OF DOCUMENT)
---
RON BUCKMIRE, 11 Colvin Circle, Troy, NY 12180-3735. `D.C. in 93!''
uunet!rpi.edu!buckmr||buckmr@rpitsmts.bitnet||buckmr@rpi.edu||+1 518 276 8910
"I think every straight guy should have another man's tongue in his mouth 
atleast once." -Madonna, quoted in NEWSWEEK, quoting from The ADVOCATE.
Newsgroups: soc.motss