Gramick speaks; others silenced
By ROBERT J. McCLORY
Special Projects Writer
TOM ROBERTS
NCR Staff Chicago
In her first public presentation since she was permanently banned
last July from ministering to gay and lesbian persons, School Sister of Notre
Dame Jeannine Gramick charged that the Vatican had trampled on established,
well-founded church policies and procedures in its investigation of her and Fr.
Robert Nugent.
She spoke at DePaul University in Chicago Oct. 11 before an
audience that was mostly students and highly supportive. The talk indicated the
general thrust of the argument she intends to present in a yearlong effort to
overturn the ban. She cited a barrage of accepted authorities, including popes,
ecumenical councils, international synods, canon law and the Catechism of
the Catholic Church to drive home her points.
Vatican II, the reform council of the early 1960s, teaches, she
said, that anyone who speaks about justice in the world should be fair
and just in their own life. The church was less than fair in its dealings with
us.
Gramick spoke at DePaul four days after Chicagos Cardinal
Francis George opened a gathering of the National Association of Catholic
Diocesan Lesbian and Gay Ministry with an order that the organization not
discuss the cases of Nugent and Gramick.
The order was accepted by the groups leadership but caused
one speaker to question whether, given such restrictions, the organization has
a reason to exist.
At DePaul, Gramick cited four general areas in which, she argued,
the Vatican violated church rights and even basic civil rights.
Subsidiarity: The principle that a higher agency or court
should not interfere in the competency of a lower one was well established by
Pope Pius XI, Vatican II and other authorities, noted Gramick. She said that
principle was followed in 1982 and 1985 when the Vatican asked her own
religious order to investigate her ministry.
In both cases, the School Sisters of Notre Dame found no cause for
concern. Instead of accepting that decision or approaching the next higher
authority (the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, for instance), the
Vatican began in 1989 its own probe through the Sacred Congregation for
Religious.
My religious order, said Gramick, never received
any thanks for their investigation or any indication whether the Vatican
accepted or rejected their findings. The decision to launch a new probe
from the top could mean either that her orders study was not vigorous
enough or that they didnt come to the right conclusion. In
any event, she said, the launching of a new probe strayed far from church
commitment to subsidiarity.
Judicial Process: The 1971 Synod of Bishops spoke
eloquently on the rights of accused persons to be given adequate defense and to
know their accusers, Gramick said. Yet, she noted, Cardinal Adam Maida, head of
the Vaticans three-member investigating body, refused to identify any of
the accusers (referred to only as bishops and others). Later, after
she protested, Gramick said, Maida admitted that of some 300 letters the
Vatican had received concerning her and Nugents work, all but 10
supported their case -- and two of the 10 were from Cardinal James Hickey who
had banned their work in his Washington, D.C, archdiocese in 1984.
In addition, she said, it appeared that she and Nugent were in
double jeopardy in the probe since Cardinal Ratzingers Congregation for
the Doctrine of the Faith was also involved from the beginning and indeed took
over the probe in 1995.
Conscience: Gramick cited the Catechisms lofty
presentation of conscience as a sacred and private
sanctuary that cannot be violated. However, she said, when she and
Nugent replied to charges that their books contained dangerous and
erroneous propositions, Maidas investigation turned from its
original intent -- a study of their public presentations -- into an invasion of
conscience. Both were asked to sign a formula of faith designed by the Vatican
that said they believed that homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral.
Gramick refused, claiming her work as a bridge between the gay and
lesbian community and the institutional church precluded her from divulging
publicly her personal beliefs. While Catholic ministers may be required to
state their assent to essential or core doctrines, she said, they
cannot be so obligated on lesser ones.
Development of Doctrine: The Vaticans apparent
underlying concern throughout the investigation, said Gramick, was
that she and Nugent were determined to change church teaching on homosexuality.
When quizzed about this by Maida, she said, she explained that she always
presented the official church position as well as other views but added her
conviction that the church must always be open to new data coming
from the social and physical sciences and from human experience. Clearly,
doctrine does develop, Gramick told the audience, citing church views on usury,
slavery, the ends of marriage and human freedom as examples of teachings that
underwent total change. In the case of homosexuality, the doctrine has
already developed, she said. Today most Catholic moral theologians
hold that homosexual activity in a loving, committed relationship is not
morally wrong.
It was her willingness to talk about the issue in all its
implications that so disturbed the Vatican, said Gramick. Some have told
me theyre killing the messenger because they didnt like the
message.
The Gramick and Nugent case may have been on the minds of many at
the meeting of the National Association of Catholic Diocesan Gay and Lesbian
Ministries, but not much was said after George gave his opening remarks.
I have explained to my liaison to AGLO (the Chicago
Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach) that the direction and climate of this
conference should make clear the purpose of this ministry -- to help those who
identify themselves, in their own hearts and also publicly, as homosexual, to
live chastely with the respect and the encouragement of the church, he
said, reading prepared remarks.
As sons and daughters of the church, you accept the
directives of the Holy See; specifically, this conference cannot be used to
criticize or mount a movement against the recent clarification of the work of
Fr. Nugent and Sr. Gramick.
George went on to warn that the meeting could not be a
gathering place for Dignity and others who are publicly opposed to church
teaching. Dignity is a Catholic advocacy group for gays and lesbians that
has publicly opposed some church teachings on homosexuality.
Earlier in his remarks, George repeated church teaching
prohibiting homosexual sexual activity because the gift of human
sexuality is oriented toward uniting a man and woman in marriage for life, for
their own unity in Christ and for the giving of new life to children. It
would be an impossible teaching to live, he said, if Christ himself
did not give us the means to live according to the gospel.
He said there are some who do not believe you can or want to
live chastely.
I believe they are wrong; but only you can show that to
be true, because only each of you can ask God for the grace to live
authentically in Christ Jesus, our savior.
Dominican Fr. Bruce Williams, who was part of a group from New
England attending the conference, in remarks to the convention the day
following Georges appearance, painted a gloomy future for the
organization.
In terms of the parameters which the cardinal has indicated
to us, Im going to say very bluntly that the future of NACDLGM seems to
me to be very questionable.
Williams said that if the clear purpose of the group,
as articulated by George, is to help homosexual people live chastely
according to the sexual teachings of the magisterium, it would simply be
duplicating the efforts of another group called Courage.
Courage, the brainchild of Oblate of St. Francis de Sales Fr. John
Harvey, advocates chastity and also encourages gays and lesbians to get
involved in programs that claim to be able to change sexual orientation.
If were not just a reduplication of Courage, then how
do we explain who we are and make clear our distinct purpose and goals in
the church as Cardinal George said we must do when we ask the National
Conference of Bishops for another episcopal moderator?
In a telephone interview following the meeting, Williams said he
sympathized with the leadership of the organization who effectively pre-empted
Georges comments with instructions to the assembly that the conference
was not the place for activism.
Im in no way critical of the leadership. I very
definitely understand the position the leadership is in. They are in a very
threatened situation right now, he said. I know there has been
strong criticism of this organization from John Harvey, he said, as well
as criticism from some U.S. bishops and the hierarchy in Rome.
Williams said he had no answer for the future. But he said he did
not think it was necessary to order the convention to be silent about Nugent
and Gramick. I would tend to think that even if he felt the obligation to
reiterate the churchs sexual teachings, I dont know that he had to
go the extra step of warning the convention away from what everyone knows is a
problem. Thats the definition of a dysfunctional family, the inability to
talk about a problem.
John Good, president of the national association, said in a phone
interview that he disagreed with Williams. Good said that a Courage chapter
exists in Chicago, but there is an even more active diocesan-based ministry
there. I think the two operate differently and their purpose is
different, and the cardinal supports both.
One message that I have tried to get out, Good said,
is I think it is more important that we have a seat at the table and that
we work with the official church. And whether we like it or not, church
teaching is what it is, and we as ministers need to understand that and
incorporate it as part of our ministry. A significant part of pastoral ministry
is meeting people where theyre at, and that continues to be an emphasis
of what we do.
Gramick, who attended the national association conference, said in
an Oct. 14 phone interview, I was sad to think that a leader of our
church would say that in light of the right that all the baptized have under
canon law to make their views known to each other and to the bishops of our
church.
National Catholic Reporter, October 22,
1999
|