30/10/2023
The first part of a two-year Synod concluded on Saturday in Vatican City. Here's a closer look at the thinking of one of several delegates interviewed by the Washington Post –– Mons. Stanisław Gądecki, Archbishop of Poznań and president of the Polish Bishops' Conference.
***
Q. There has been much discussion about calls to bless same s*x unions couples, and in fact some priests in Germany and Belgium are doing just that. Others in the church have argued this is tantamount to condoning sin. How was that issue handled during the Synod, and can His Eminence share how he responded to those calls?
A. Christ is the Savior of all people, regardless of their origin, race, color, s*xual orientation, nationality, gender, etc. Therefore, the Church, which Pope Francis strongly emphasizes, must not close the door, the "gate of mercy," to anyone who wishes to draw near to Christ. At the same time, the conditions for the truthfulness of this encounter with Christ are the same for everyone, whatever our differences, including gender and s*xual orientation: it is always conversion, turning away from sin and adopting a lifestyle in accordance with the Gospel.
A benediction in Latin (bene-dictio) means to call someone or something good. Benedictions, or blessings of homos*xual unions would mean that the Church approves of the lifestyle of homos*xual partnerships (even if it does not equate them with marriages,) which also means s*x between same-s*x couples. What has always been defined as a sin in the Judeo-Christian tradition would now become something positive.
The Catholic Church distinguishes between homos*xual inclinations and homos*xual acts. The former, although disordered, are not considered sinful. The latter are sinful and, in the words of the Catechism, "will in no way be approved by the Church." The Church calls persons with homos*xual inclinations to a life of chastity. While a person may not personally decide on their inclination, they are not denied the freedom that allows them to live according to their own informed choice.
The distinction between inclinations and acts stems both from the faith and tradition of the Church, and from the observation that people experiencing gender dysphoria, despite the intrinsic diversity of this group, generally follow two distinctly different paths through life, adopting two different lifestyles. Some, often identifying with the designation LGBTQ+, lead lives that are clearly at odds with the Church's teaching, yet they often seek to change that teaching. Others, who do not identify with the above name, live a life of chastity, and expect the Church to reinforce them in this choice through its teaching.
People in this second group do not feel rejected by Catholic s*xual morality. On the contrary, through the Church's teaching, they have been able to understand themselves better, and have experienced a profound encounter with Christ through the sacraments. It is painful for them that, in pastoral practice, they no longer encounter the Church's teaching more often. [Instead] they often encounter a typification that corresponds to the language of the LGBTQ+ movement, but has nothing to do with the reality of their lives, and even rejects it.
These people, despite trying to live in a state of grace and striving for holiness, feel abandoned by the Church, which ignores their need for spiritual guidance and support. They see the attack on the Church's teaching, that they follow in their lives, as a direct assault on their own faith, and their life choice of fidelity to Christ. They do not understand why the Church is trying to marginalize them. Not only do they feel alone, but they are also psychologically destabilized by a pastoral care practice that undermines the meaning of chastity, and a person's capacity to live in chastity.
For example, representatives of the American Courage group were not invited to the Synod. Nor were those whose testimonies are published by Markus Hoffmann in his book “Weil ich es will.” Representatives of other currents were included, instead.
***
Q. To what extent did the Synod appear willing to discuss and move forward the idea of married priests or female ordination? What input did His Eminence share on those subjects?
A. I am not permitted to talk about what is happening at the Synod. Everyone is bound by the confidentiality clause introduced by Pope Francis. [But] let's try to answer by referring to the German document. Well, Germany is pushing hard to introduce the diaconate for women. However, they do not cite theological arguments, but [only] the ban on gender discrimination, and women's empowerment. This argumentation suggests that what is at issue here is not the diaconate, but rather the position of women in the Church.
Consequently, the introduction of the women's diaconate would not be a solution to the issue, but would only inflame the dispute over the ordination of women to the priesthood. Historically, the diaconate of women differed from the diaconate of men. Women were deaconesses because of women's baptism by immersion. Modesty required that men not assist in this act. Deaconesses were introduced into the Maronite Church at a synod in 1736.
However, the work of deaconesses (diaconissarum opera) differed from the ministry of deacons (diaconi officium,) [and] involved charitable activities. Among other things, they were forbidden to approach the altar and administer Holy Communion, even in the absence of a deacon. I don't think women requesting ordination to the diaconate today would be satisfied with such a prospect. Without the diaconate, they are allowed much more in the Church than Maronite deaconesses.
Regarding celibacy, we must be aware that those who speak of the "voluntariness" of celibacy are, in fact, advocating its abolition. Celibacy is one of the most significant signs that one truly believes in the realness and truth of God. It is the genuine treasure of our Church. Perhaps this is why the ancient Christian writers called celibacy "white martyrdom." Celibacy, like martyrdom, is an emphatic sign of faith in the absolute primacy of God in life.
The life of a celibate is a clear sign that God is the precious pearl – the one, the only one. The only one without whom it is impossible to live. The real and ultimate disability in life is not celibacy, but godlessness, life without God, a-theism. God is all we need. The radicalism of giving up the most beautiful form of human love – marriage and family – is the sign that God is an absolute necessity for all of us to fulfill human destiny.
Who is to show this truth if not the pastors of the community? The fact that some priests have been a scandal in recent years makes it more difficult for some people to understand the greatness and meaning of a celibate life. However, it is not a sufficient reason for the Church to abandon priestly celibacy. Still, young people across the globe are making this commitment generously. Thousands of priests see Christ himself, the high priest who did not start a family, as a model for their service to others.
***
Q. What topics, if any, does his imminence feel were not given high enough prominence in the discussions?
A. Although “inclusion” is often repeated, few people are wondering what it means. Meanwhile, before it reached the synod hall, the term was clearly defined in the language of secular politics. We should not associate it only with “all-inclusive” holidays but also with the International Planned Parenthood Federation and the UN Women’s agenda.
The documents of these institutions are unequivocal in their undermining the binary division of s*x and recognizing all forms of gender expression as equivalent. They are also about abolishing or loosening the existing criteria for accession to various groups, including the Church. When the Lutheran Church was a state Church in Sweden, an atheist demanded admission to the Church community without baptism. He won the court case, which ruled that requiring baptism was discrimination.
The question arises: Was the Lord Jesus’ teaching inclusive or exclusionary? Jesus left a clear message to the disciples: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them...” (Mt 28:19). He did good and died on the cross for everyone, including the greatest sinners, but was crucified, among other things, because he made things clear, he told the truth, also the uncomfortable one for the listeners. “You belong to your father the devil” (Jn 8:44) – these were not random words. Radical inclusion was not his highest priority, as seen when many disciples left after his speech about the Bread of Life (Jn 6:66).
Believers in Christ do not send anyone to hell. They pray for everyone’s salvation, which does not mean they downplay human attitudes, choices, and actions. That is why St. Paul commands the Christians in Corinth to exclude the incestuous person from the community by stating: "You are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord" (1 Cor 5:5). Then he adds that they ought "not even to eat with such a person" (1 Cor 5:11.) Certainly, the Gospel of Jesus was offered to everyone, men and women, Jews and pagans. However, the invitation of the Lord Jesus did not mean that everyone is welcome on their own terms. It comprised a call to conversion and penance.
The word “inclusivity” definitely does not fit into Christian theology. It comes to us from the social sciences. [That] is where the problem arises. The Church professes the dogma of the infallibility of the pope. At the same time, one can get the impression that some theologians and bishops believe in the infallibility of social sciences, and not even the sciences, but some mainstream sociologists and theories, which in a few decades will only be mentioned in history textbooks.
(These answers have been edited for length and clarity)
