REPORT OF THE
FINDINGS
OF THE COMMISSION
STUDYING THE WRITINGS & MINISTRY
OF
SISTER JEANNINE GRAMICK, SSND
AND
FATHER ROBERT NUGENT, SDS
In March of 1988, the Congregation for Religious and Secular
Institutes formed an ad hoc Commission chaired by Archbishop Adam J.
Maida, presently the Archbishop of Detroit, and at that time the
Bishop of Green Bay, Wisconsin. Msgr. James Mulligan of the Diocese of
Allentown, Pennsylvania and Sister Sharon Holland, IHM, who was later
replaced by Dr. Janet Smith of Irving, Texas, were also appointed to
serve on the Commission.
The Commission was to hear and examine the theological writings and
teachings on homosexuality of Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and
Father Robert Nugent, SDS. Sister Gramick and Father Nugent had been
involved in a ministry to homosexuals since 1971. The Congregation had
been aware of concerns that the teachings, writings and ministry of
Sister Gramick and Father Nugent may have created an ambiguity which
has caused confusion in the minds of some people with regard to the
teachings of the Church on homosexuality.
The Commission was to meet with Sister Gramick and Father Nugent in
the presence of their major superiors "to evaluate the clarity
and lack of ambiguity of their statements with respect to the Church’s
teaching on homosexuality." (Letter of Archbishop Laghi to
Archbishop Maida of May 9, 1988.)
In 1984, the Congregation for Religious and Secular Institutes had
already instructed Sister Gramick and Father Nugent to separate
themselves totally and completely from the New Ways Ministry as of
September, 1984. In addition, they were obliged not to engage in any
apostolate or to participate in any program unless it is clearly
stated that homosexual acts are intrinsically and objectively wrong.
The Commission chaired by Archbishop Maida met three times in
Detroit with Sister Gramick and Father Nugent and their respective
superiors: March 18, 1994, and then on May 25th and July
26th. The March 18th and May 25th
meetings principally addressed procedural matters. The July 26th
meeting addressed both issues of procedure and substance. Msgr. James
Mulligan who has fully participated in the work of the Commission, was
unable to be present at the July 26th meeting because of
illness. However, his concerns were raised by other Commission
members. He has made himself fully familiar with the contents of the
taped recording and the minutes of the meeting.
At the July 26th meeting, Sister Gramick and Father
Nugent, in addition to their religious provincials, Sister Christine
Mulcahy, SSND; Father Dennis Thiessen, SDS, the newly elected
provincial of the Salvatorian Fathers; and Father Paul Portland, SDS,
former provincial; were joined by their canonical, theological and
pastoral consultants: Bishop John Snyder, Bishop of St. Augustine,
Florida; Msgr. Leonard Scott, Judicial Vicar of the Diocese of Camden,
New Jersey; Rev. Bruce Williams, O.P., a moral theologian and
currently pastor of Holy Name of Jesus Parish in Valhalla, New York;
and Dr. James Hanigan, chairperson of the Theology Department,
Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Sister Christine
Mulcahy and Father Paul Portland were also present at the March 18th
and May 25th meetings. Sister Gramick, Father Nugent and
their religious provincials cooperated fully with the work of the
Commission.
In its formal hearings, the Commission utilized a process modeled
along the lines of the Doctrinal Responsibilities, a document
approved by the National Conference of Catholic Bishops in 1989. The
Commission was pleased to hear from the participants at the July 26th
meeting of their agreement that the process observed at the hearings
was a fair one.
Sister Gramick and Father Nugent identified their book entitled Building
Bridges: Gay and Lesbian Reality and the Catholic Church (1992) as
being most representative of their work and reflective of their
presentations. To focus the discussion, the Commission submitted a
series of questions to them in writing as well as selected passages
from their book and asked for written responses. At the July 26th
meeting, the written responses were discussed in relationship to
various passages from Building Bridges, as well as certain
procedural matters.
The Commission is aware that the writings of Sister Gramick and
Father Nugent have received wide distribution and that the various
workshops they have conducted have covered both an extensive period of
time (from the early 1970’s until the present) and an extensive
area. They have conducted "seminars in more than 130 of the 169
U.S. Dioceses and Archdioceses to educate people about homophobia"
(Building Bridges, p. 206). In the course of its work, the
Commission received in excess of 250 letters from bishops, priests,
religious and laity, as well as national organizations in the United
States, England and Australia. In various cities and dioceses where
they have conducted workshops, the workshops have often been followed
by newspaper articles in the secular press. The Commission believes
that the writings and ministry of Sister Gramick and Father Nugent
have made a significant impact on many involved in a homosexual
ministry as well as homosexuals and their families.
Sister Gramick and Father Nugent are engaged in an important and
needed ministry which they identify as an attempt to build bridges
between the homosexual community and the Church and the Church and the
homosexual community. The Commission recognizes the great difficulties
involved in this endeavor and its controversial nature. It is a
relatively new ministry, and one that they have dedicated their lives
to developing. Many Catholics are unaware of the nature and condition
of homosexuality, have had little opportunity to ponder the struggles
faced by those with a homosexual orientation, and do not understand
the pastoral needs of homosexual persons. Some clergy, religious and
laity are reluctant to address the needs of homosexual persons for
fear they will thereby be condoning sinful behavior. Sadly, some
clergy, religious and lay persons, both heterosexual and homosexual,
are not knowledgeable about what the Church really teaches regarding
homosexual orientation, homosexual behavior and the rights of
homosexual persons.
It is the view of the Commission that a thorough and sympathetic
presentation of Church teaching could play a significant role in
reconciliation with the Church of persons with a homosexual
orientation. Many heterosexuals would be kinder and more just to
homosexuals if they understood this same teaching. Many homosexual
persons have had alienating experiences at the hands of Church people,
are estranged from the Church, and need someone to reach out to them
with love, compassion and understanding. This task of reaching out to
others is sometimes made more difficult because the Church’s
teaching has traditionally been expressed in language whose meaning is
not easily grasped by those not familiar with the history of moral
theology. This language can sometimes sound insensitive and even
offensive if not properly understood.
The Commission believes that Sister Gramick and Father Nugent are to
be commended for recognizing these important needs and for having the
courage and zeal to attempt to address them. Their love and compassion
for those who need someone to reach out to is clear and commendable.
The Commission observes that Sister Gramick and Father Nugent are in
a position of special responsibility. Sister Gramick is a member of an
institute of consecrated life. Father Nugent is an ordained priest and
a member of a society of apostolic life. Their chosen state in life,
that of consecrated individuals, brings with it certain
responsibilities. They have special obligations to faithfully
represent the Church in an official way that goes beyond what others
may be called to do who are not religious. In addition, the special
relationship between diocesan bishops and their responsibility for the
apostolic life of a diocese, and religious communities and their
unique mission and apostolate, must guide any ministry.
Sister Gramick and Father Nugent believe that their presentations
are faithful to Church teaching. The written testimony from
individuals who attended their workshops and presentations has been
valuable for its witness to the listening abilities and compassion
exhibitied by Sister Gramick and Father Nugent. Some of the testimony
by writers judged their presentations faithful to the teaching of the
Church. That testimony, however, was challenged by other individuals
who found serious problems with their presentations. The Commission
did not take the "word" of one set of evaluators against
another, but, rather, studied their work, primarily paying attention
to their book, Building Bridges. Sister Gramick and Father
Nugent identified this booka s the work that best represents their
ministry and writings. The Commission also had available a set of
tapes that recorded one of their public presentations. In both written
and oral form, the Commission members posed questions about the work
of Sister Gramick and Father Nugent. Sister Gramick and Father Nugent
were given an opportunity to explain their ministry and answer in
full, both in writing and in the discussions, with their superiors and
consultants present, the questions that were posed to them.
It is the view of the Commission that a major issue centers on a
matter that Sister Gramick and Father Nugent do not consider central
to their ministry, i.e. the question of the morality of homogenital
acts. While this matter may be secondary to their primary purpose, it
is a crucial question for the moral choices that affect the human
person, and, therefore, it cannot be considered incidental. While the
Commission believes that it is not inappropriate to criticize the
Church at times or to speculate about possible development of Church
teaching, the Commission found some of the criticism of the Church and
speculation in the work of Sister Jeannine Gramick and Father Robert
Nugent to be inappropriate and misleading in a pastoral setting.
The Commission is aware that in a number of dioceses Sister Gramick
and Father Nugent met with the diocesan bishop prior to conducting
their workshops and seminars. However, a number of the workshops were
conducted in various dioceses without the approval of the diocesan
bishop and, in some instances, despite his objections. The commission
believes that there is sufficient ambiguity in the writings of Sister
Gramick and Father Nugent that would cause a bishop of a diocese to be
concerned about the faithfulness of their presentations of Church
teaching.
The Commission finds that there are some serious problems with their
writings and ministry. While the written responses provided by Sister
Gramick and Father Nugent to the questions identified by the
Commission in writing were unobjectionable, those written responses
appeared to be in conflict with passages in the book Building
Bridges. When asked about seeming inconsistencies between their
responses to the questions and their book, Sister Gramick and Father
Nugent failed to resolve several serious problems raised by passages
in Building Bridges.
Some of the more serious problems that the Commission discovered
follow. Included is brief documentation that illustrates some of the
reasons for drawing these conclusions. We do not believe that the
texts cited to illustrate the problems identified are isolated
instances of such problems. We thought it best, however, to cite only
passages which Sister Gramick and Father Nugent had an opportunity to
explain in their meeting with the Commission.
I. It is the view of the Commission that the effort to combine the
task of speaking for the Church to the homosexual community and
speaking for the homosexual community to the Church has created
ambiguity and confusion. Observations, language, and criticisms that
may be appropriate when attempting to call the Church to greater
sensitivity to the concerns of homosexuals is mixed inappropriately
with attempts to convey Church teaching to homosexual persons.
A. It is often not clear 1) whether they were speaking for
homosexuals to the Church and presenting the homosexual
experience in a descriptive and neutral fashion; 2) whether they were
not just reporting the homosexual experience in a descriptive and
neutral fashion, but were reporting the homosexual experience as
somehow definitive and as contradicting Church teaching, or 3) whether
Sister Gramick and Father Nugent were speaking for themselves (in a
critical tone against something in the Church). Examples of this
ambiguity would be as follows:
"The king could easily represent some members of the church
hierarchy who are often kind but misguided men. Esther may portend
lesbian and gay Christians who, through their perseverance and
devotion to humanity, may eventually prevail upon church leaders to
change their current approach to sexuality and sexual ethics that is
placing unnecessary and unrealistic burdens on God’s people. Just
as Esther saved her people, lesbian and gay Christians will save the
church by enabling the faith community to make peace with their
sexuality and to cease an emotional destruction of human lives ….
"… Lesbian and gay persons remind the Christian community
that God alone is absolute. Those who cling to an inflexible
heterosexism, who fear a world in which heterosexuality is not thought
to be a superior form of sexuality, fail to reverence other human
beings properly. Heterosexuality is their god.
"Lesbian and gay Christians must begin to articulate an
alternative spiritual and theological vision that will be taken
seriously by the larger Christian community.
"…Domestic partner relationships, with the legal rights
and benefits accruing to same-sex couples, have been acknowledged by
several large cities in the United States. These social developments
portend a future conducive to spiritual and theological change. Only
when lesbian and gay persons have been accorded full and equal respect
and dignity as human beings in society and in the church so that they
are no longer categorized as inferior insiders or outsiders, will the
Christian community be able to say that the god of heterosexism has
been eradicated." (pp. 192-93, Building Bridges)
When asked to explain passages that seemed critical of Church
teaching and of the hierarchy, Sister Gramick stated that she was not
presenting her own views, but those of homosexuals. Nothing in these
passages makes that clear. The Commission believes it would be a
reasonable interpretation of these passages to conclude that the
author thinks the Church should change its teaching.
B. Few of the responses of Sister Gramick and Father Nugent to the
letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of 1986 or
1992 showed that they were prepared to interpret this official Church
teaching in a sympathetic light. While it may be appropriate to speak
critically to Church authorities about certain pastoral
insensitivities they find in the document, as religious persons they
should minimally be expected to show to the homosexual community that,
in spite of such problems, there is no significant departure from
earlier Church teaching on homosexuality in that letter. Passages such
as the following show that this expectation is not fulfilled.
"…The letter is inappropriately named because most of
the 18 paragraphs betray little pastoral concern. Most of the letter
is devoted to stemming the tide of increasing acceptance of same-sex
behavior. It seemed to devalue individuals it considered threats to
the social fabric and implied that individual bishops have been
manipulated into supporting a change in civil statutes. Instead of
condemning the perpetrators of violence against lesbian women and gay
men, the Vatican letter claimed that increasing violence is
understandable. In a classic example of blaming the victim, the
congregation erroneously asserted that lesbian and gay people have no
‘conceivable right’ to any civil legislation that protects
their behavior. Society, the Congregation said, should not be ‘surprised’
when ‘violent reactions increase’ …" (p. 72,
Building Bridges)
C. Sister Gramick explained a passage from Building Bridges
as an expression of the anger of the homosexual community, not as an
expression of her own anger. In that passage she writes:
"How can the Christian churches justify any theology that
ignores the experience of more than one hundred million lesbian and
gay Christians? How can we be complacent with church structures that
accept heterosexual persons but punish lesbian and gay persons when
they are true to their natures? How can we claim that the Christian
churches are following the gospel of Jesus if Christianity aggravates
the alienation from the faith community that lesbian and gay persons
face?" (p. 187, Building Bridges)
The Commission believes that a reader would reasonably understand
this passage to be the expression of the views of the author. If the
passage is addressed to those who are responsible for "church
structures" that "punish lesbian and gay persons when they
are true to their natures," the grounds for the accusation should
be made more clear. If it is addressed to homosexuals, it would seem
to foster alienation from the Church. It would not serve to draw
people closer to the Church.
D. Certain passages from Building Bridges expressed
hostility to the Church:
"…Many grassroots Catholics believe that the church is
obsessed with sexual bodily parts while lesbian lives are stunted or
destroyed…
"We need a conversion of heart that will take us ‘back to
the basics’ of the early Christian community. We may have to
choose between ‘defending church teaching’ and proclaiming
Jesus’ message of love…" (p. 75)
"…Attempting a delicate balancing act, the U.S.
hierarchy is trying to demonstrate to lesbian and gay Catholics a
sense of care and compassion while, at the same time, trying to
maintain loyalty to Roman expectations. The two goals may be
incompatible." (p. 168)
II. A most serious deficiency seems to be the inability on the part
of both Sister Gramick and Father Nugent to provide an accurate and
sympathetic explanation of the terms "natural" and "disorder,"
both of which are critical to the church’s teaching on
homosexuality. Neither in the book nor in their answers to questions
of the Commission was the understanding of the Church of the words "natural"
and "disorder" clearly and accurately stated.
A. For instance, they ask a series of questions which seem to call
into doubt the truth of the Church’s teaching that homosexuality
is unnatural (again, without having truly clarified the meaning of
that teaching):
"The basic question gay and lesbian Catholics raise is
this: why is heterosexuality judged to be normative for full humanity
and sexuality? What are the grounds for such a claim? Do we need to
examine that claim and all of its sources, including biblical,
psychological, and theological ones? Is heterosexuality such an
intrinsic part of authentic human nature that without it the
individual person is in some way lacking or inferior? Is human nature
the same for all times or are we learning more and more about previous
positions concerning what is normative? Do we not need to be a bit
more humble about definite teachings on sexuality in the face of new
information from the sciences, as Rembert Weakland (1980) has
suggested?" (p. 154, Building Bridges)
"The freedom of moral theologians to move in this
direction, however, could be seriously threatened by direct outside
interventions and attempts to curtail certain trends in moral
theology. But there is little to prevent lay Catholics, other than
discouragement and frustration, from continuing to reflect upon their
experiences, articulate the goodness and humanity of their lives, and
continue to stand in their own truth. In the long run, this might be
the most crucial and effective ongoing contribution to the process of
analyzing new data, asking new questions, and proposing new answers to
questions about homosexuality in particular and sexuality in general."
(pp. 155-56, Building Bridges)
B. They use the term "natural" in reference to "homosexuality"
in such a way that one could reasonably conclude that homosexual
sexual acts should be considered morally permissible. While, when
asked, they state that they are using the term "natural" in
a sense nearer to the "popular level" or in a "psychological
sense," they do not take care to make this clear when speaking of
homosexuality as "natural"; thus, they seem to contradict
the Church.
A passage on p. 33 of Building Bridges notes:
"…I am now convinced that homosexual and bisexual
feelings and behaviors are just as natural as heterosexual ones.
"…That the main stumbling block to my argument comes from
theological and philosophical discourse demonstrates to me that these
disciplines either have failed to keep abreast of scientific
developments or have willfully ignored current findings in order to
legitimize a preconceived notion of divine intent for the human order.
How can I say that bisexual and homosexual feelings are as natural as
heterosexual ones? What does it mean to be ‘natural’ let me
consider that definition of the word from various disciplines."
C. Their response to the use of the word "disordered" in
Church documents would seem to reinforce the view of those who find
offensive the judgment that homosexuality is "disordered."
They do not seem prepared to offer a precise explanation of that term
in line with the Church’s employment of the term, an explanation
that may conceivably lead those who are offended by the perceived
meaning of the word to cease being offended.
"A positive and affirming lesbian gay theology or
spirituality rejects the notion that a homosexual orientation is
abnormal, sick, sinful, or criminal. The 1986 letter from the Vatican’s
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which contended that a
homosexual orientation was ‘objectively disordered,’
obviously did not begin from the experience of being lesbian or gay.
Such experience confirms that a homosexual orientation is not contrary
to nature but is part of God’s plan for creation and essential
for developing the human family. Without the presence of lesbian and
gay people in the world, reality would be truncated and humankind
unfulfilled. These assertions are based on the testimony of lesbian
and gay Christians and the witness of their lives (Curb & Manahan,
1985; Gramick, 1983, 1980; McNaught, 1988; McNeill, 1988; Zanotti,
1986)." (p. 189 of Building Bridges)
D. Sister Gramick and Father Nugent hold out as a possibility that
the Church may change its teaching and eventually approve of
homosexual genital activity. In a direct response, Sister Gramick
indicated she would want to see the Church open to any development,
including the eventual approval of stable, single-sex, committed
relationships that involve genital activity.
While speculating that the Church might change its teaching in some
respects may be appropriate in rather narrow academic circles, to
engage in such speculation as part of a pastoral presentation to
audiences that may include individuals who are called to live in
accord with the Church’s teaching is inappropriate.
III. While Sister Gramick and Father Nugent take care to state
clearly the Church’s teaching about homosexuality, they
themselves are not manifest advocates of the Church’s teaching.
They merely present the Church’s teaching, but give no
evidence of personal advocacy of it. Neither was prepared to give
personal assent to the Church’s teaching on homogenital behavior.
Both were ambiguous in their responses regarding legislation that
would allow for single-sex marriages or adoption by homosexual
individuals.
The Commission believes that it would be a reasonable judgment from
Sister Gramick’s and Father Nugent’s words and presentations
to conclude that they are lobbying for a change in the Church’s
teaching. This change would consider the homosexual orientation to be
natural in some sense of natural that would permit stable, single-sex
relationships that involve genital behavior. They are careful not to
state explicitly that they are lobbying for a change in Church
teaching, and deny (when asked) that such is their intent. The manner
in which their thoughts are expressed, however, is not consistent with
that denial.
"I am now convinced that homosexual and bisexual feelings
and behaviors are just as natural as heterosexual ones." (p.
33 of Building Bridges)
IV. It is the view of the Commission that the work of Sister Gramick
and Father Nugent contains troublesome and even dangerous ambiguities
regarding the meaning of "Church" and the weight of various
Church documents. When they speak of "the Church," it is
unclear to whom they are referring. At times it appears to be the
hierarchy; at other times the clergy, or the laity, or those
responsible for drafting Church documents. Sister Gramick and Father
Nugent make statements that seem to be critical of what the "Church"
teaches or says. When queried about these, they respond that they are
simply stating what homosexuals have expressed. It is the view of the
Commission that as religious they need to help homosexuals clarify the
true object of their criticism – are they angry at individuals, "structures,"
at language and analogies used by the Church, or by the very teaching
of the Church?
They claim that the "theology" of the Church "ignores
the experience of more than one hundred million lesbian and gay
Christians" (Building Bridges, p. 187 and 189):
"How can the Christian churches justify any theology that
ignores the experience of more than one hundred million lesbian and
gay Christians? How can we be complacent with church structures that
accept heterosexual persons but punish lesbian and gay persons when
they are true to their natures? How can we claim that the Christian
churches are following the gospel of Jesus if Christianity aggravates
the alienation from the faith community that lesbian and gay persons
face?" (p. 187)
"A positive and affirming lesbian gay theology or
spirituality rejects the notion that a homosexual orientation is
abnormal, sick, sinful, or criminal. The 1986 letter from the Vatican’s
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which contended that a
homosexual orientation was ‘objectively disordered,’
obviously did not gain from the experience of being lesbian or gay.
Such experience confirms that a homosexual orientation is not contrary
to nature but is part of God’s plan for creation and essential
for developing the human family. Without the presence of lesbian and
gay people in the world, reality would be truncated and humankind
unfulfilled. These assertions are based on the testimony of lesbian
and gay Christians and the witness of their lives…" (p. 189)
There are two important points left ambiguous here. 1) Which
part of the "Church" are they speaking of: the teaching
itself of the Church, some documents written by the Church, or some
Church theologians? 2) What "experience" of lesbians and
gays are they speaking of? That experience is wide and varied and all
would not say the same thing to the Church.
In addition, there is a failure to distinguish the relative
authority of Church documents and all documents appear to have similar
weight independently of their source. Documents issued by various
individual bishops, committees, or conferences seem to be given equal
or preferential weight to the documents of the Holy See.
V. While claiming to present the full range of research and thinking
on homosexuality, they fail to give sufficient attention to some
important responses to homosexuality. For the most part, they seem
convinced that any change in homosexual orientation is impossible.
They do little with considerable testimony among evangelical
Protestant communities and some portions of the psychiatric and
psychological communities that such change is possible.
VI. They were directed to separate themselves completely from New
Ways Ministry in 1984. They continue to distribute New Ways Ministry
materials at their workshop and continue in various national programs
and seminars to be listed as co-founders of New Ways Ministry in a
manner that suggests they continue to be involved.
This evaluation of the statements of Sister Gramick and Father
Nugent with respect to the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is
submitted by the Commission in carrying out the mandate conveyed to
the members of the Commission by the Congregation for Institutes of
Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life. The Commission
clearly recognizes the value of certain aspects of their ministry, but
is obligated to point out the other significant areas that are
problematic.
Respectfully submitted, this
4th day of October, 1994
Archbishop Adam J. Maida
Msgr. James J. Mulligan
Dr. Janet E. Smith
|
