When Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schonborn suggested last week that the Catholic Church should rethink its positions on homosexuality and divorce, gay and progressive Catholic bloggers were all over it: I wrote about it at Queering the Church, and do did Bill Lindsay at Bilgrimage, Colleen Kochivar-Baker at Enlightened Catholicism, and Phillip Clark at Open Tabernacle. The mainstream media largely ignored it, concentrating instead on his other remarks attacking another cardinal for obstructing action against abusive priests, and urging widespread reform of the Curia.
To read too much into the Cardinal's remarks may be simply clutching at straws - or there may be something deeper behind it, particularly if you look at the wider picture of what has been said - or not said- recently on the topic.
The Cardinal's actual words were mild enough. On homosexuality, he said only
“We should give more consideration to the quality of homosexual relationships,” adding: “A stable relationship is certainly better than if someone chooses to be promiscuous.”
and on divorce, he reminded us that in the modern world, many people don;t even bother to marry at all. He also said,
The primary thing to consider should not be the sin, but people’s striving to live according to the commandments, he said. Instead of a morality based on duty, we should work towards a morality based on happiness, he continued.
Cautious and moderate as these are, some of the bloggers who commented have expressed scepticism: if the ideas are to be taken up more widely, it would represent a major turnaround in official thinking. (Is that really a senior Catholic Cardinal putting morality of "happiness" ahead of traditional Catholic guilt?) Some caution before cracking open the champagne is therefore advisable. So let us reflect: is there any evidence from elsewhere that change may be on its way? Consider first, the perceptive analysis by James Alison of the two documents on homosexuality and the priesthood. (This is a lengthy article, which I summarised at Queering the Church as "Holy Spirit at Work? James Alison") When the first of these Vatican documents was issued, in the very early days of Benedict’s papacy, it was widely and rightly condemned for blaming the problems of clerical abuse of minors on gay priests, and for its use of this as a justification for preventing or restricting the admission of openly gay candidates to seminaries. When a second document was issued a few years later, it too was widely criticized on similar grounds. However, Alison pointed out that the supposed bias against gay candidates in this second document was misguided. It was not an attack on gay priests, but a general call for more careful screening of candidates. Those critics who assumed it was referring to gay candidates, were seeing something that simply was not there. They were reading into it the content of the first document: but now, a few years into Benedict’s papacy, references to homosexuality had been excluded. In the same analysis, Alison also wrote about an article in the Vatican newspaper, L’Avennire, which flatly rejected the idea that homosexuality is a sickness. This is how I concluded my summary of his article:
From this, together with his lengthy and tightly reasoned reflections on the earlier events, Alison appears to conclude that the Holy Spirit is presently at work in the Church, guiding Benedict as the representative of Peter on earth, together with some other influential figures, to prepare the Church for a gradual recognition of the past errors on matters of homosexuality, and to bring it into the modern world.
More recently, Alison wrote a thoughtful piece claiming that it is now an "exciting" time to be both gay and Catholic, as a change in church teaching is inevitable, by virtue of the Church's own inner logic. (See "Discovery of "Gay" = Good News For the Church")The theologian John McNeill has also written frequently on the same theme, namely that the Holy Spirit is constantly working to transform the church, not least right now, on this important issue of theology and homosexuality.
Now consider the reaction when at the peak of the outcry over abuse, Cardinal Bertone again laid the blame on gay priests. Instead of automatic agreement, his remarks drew strong criticism. What had been standard teaching just five years back, was now widely and very publicly repudiated. (See “Cardinal Bertone’s Stupidity Under Fire in Church")
I return again to Cardinal Schonborn. When his quoted remarks on abuse a few months ago appeared to include a suggestion that compulsory clerical celibacy was to blame for the problem and should be reviewed, he was quick to respond with denials, claiming the old chestnut that he had been misquoted: he hadn’t said that at all. For me, this is what makes the commentary on the latest remarks by James Martin SJ at America blog so fascinating. Instead of digging into the full meaning of the words as quoted, he asks instead if they will be refuted by others, or withdrawn by the Cardinal himself, as were his words (or non-words) on celibacy.
On those last two topics (gays and remarried Catholics) let’s see how long it takes for (a) the Vatican to distance itself from Schönborn’s comments; or (b) Schönborn himself to say he was misquoted.
It's not as though there has not been any opportunity or occasion for a e response. The Tablet states that Fr Lombardi, Vatican press spokesman, replied to a question from an Austrian journalist by agreeing that Cardinal Sodano’s words on Easter Sunday were “not the wisest”. This appears to have been a question relating to reports of Schonborn’s remarks, so there has been plenty of time for a rebuttal.
The press conference was over a week ago. As of today, Tuesday 11th May, I have been unable to turn up any reports of either. I have set up a Google News Alert on Schonborn’s name, to see if there are any future news reports of the Cardinal’s observations being either contested by the Vatican, or repudiated by himself. If such a repudiation does come, I will certainly share it. If I do not post on any such repudiation, you may take it that there has been none.
A further reason for taking seriously the possibility that there is something substantial in these hints, comes from recognising the close relationship that exists between Schonborn and Benedict XVI. Although his recent appearances in the news have painted him on the liberal wing of the church, he was earlier more widely regarded as conservative (which is why some of my blogging colleagues have expressed scepticism). He is also closely associated with the pope. He studied under him, and is still said to be "close" to him. It is likely that he has a good understanding of papal thinking. This is what he had to say about Benedict and reform:
Cardinal Schönborn said that Pope Benedict was “gently” working on reforming the Curia but he had the whole world on his desk, as the cardinal put it, and his way of working and his style of communication did not make it easy to advise him quickly from outside. (The Tablet)
Change in the Catholic Church does come, but usually does so slowly, imperceptibly. As I reflect on the observations of James Alison and John McNeill, and the lack of response to Cardinal Schonborn, I become more hopeful than ever that change in the teaching on homosexuality will indeed come - as, after all, it must.