Last week, we began our analysis of Synodal Working Paper 9, which promotes deeper discussion and normalization of same-sex relationships. Throughout the history and tradition of Catholicism, these relationships have been understood as outside the moral norm.
Having to combat resistance to teaching and tradition, the group consciously changed the terms, making previously off-the-table issues open for discussion. One glaring change came by reframing “controversial issues,” which the topic is, to “emerging issues”.
Changing the language to “emerging” presupposes that the subject is not a challenge to natural law, but an evolution of it. The group apparently believes the present understanding of natural law is inadequate because it doesn’t allow for an expansion of more modern sexual expressions.
The strain of thought hasn’t diminished since Pope Paul VI deemed contraception as non-permissible and against natural law, and was widely criticized by clergy and laity. The Synod may be another attempt to take a bite out of the same apple, hoping to loosen sexual morality precepts to include homosexual encounters.
Natural law and the Church’s teachings dictate that the purpose of a sexual encounter cannot be devoid of an openness to life, an impossibility with same-sex relationships. An ‘emergent’ issue, by definition, means there is something left to be unearthed or a new way of thinking about the matter. Regardless of the terms used and the mental gymnastics employed, the inability to be fruitful and multiply must be disordered because by engaging in something impossible, a person misuses his gift of potential reproduction for bodily pleasure.
The group’s objectives to combat God’s mandate and explain the legitimacy of same-sex relationships must comprise a whole new framework, which they refer to as a paradigm change of the Church’s mission by “rediscovering the biblical conception of God’s truth as revealed in history, fostering processes of shared learning within the Christian community”. If what they say is true, then Martin Luther may have never felt the need to nail his 95 theses to a church door.
The rationalization of the group continues in another one of their short-sighted premises. “The universal truth of humanity is not determined once and for all but is revealed through concrete forms of different cultures. It unfolds in an incessant dialogue whereby communities and individuals progress through an exchange of gifts, promoted by the search for truth and justice in the light of the Gospel.”
The universal truth of humanity, contrary to this claim, is fixed and given to humanity by God’s revelation through the prophets, disciples’ accounts, and most importantly, through the person of Jesus Christ. The erroneous statement suggests that the truths of humanity, initiated by God, can somehow change over time. That is not the definition of objective truth, but of a subjective one. God can never change, and his truths never change or evolve into something more suited to a progressive, modern mind.
What becomes quite apparent in the group’s paper is the shift from being open to the Word of God first and implementing it in life to a view in which humanity, can, through discussion and searching, somehow unearths the truth. It is, at its root, a display of hubris whereby, through human agency and consensus, one can arrive at moral certainty. This appears to be the paradigm shift they are talking about—telling God what his truth should be, rather than receiving God’s revelation through Jesus, scripture, and tradition, and obeying it.
To support their claim, the study suggests that the anthropology of humanity is changing, meaning humanity two thousand years ago is somehow different from people today. If that is the case, then tradition and scripture are antiquated and need to be interpreted in the modern world to accommodate the needs of those who are attracted to the same sex. St. Paul’s admonition against sexual deviancy no longer would apply, and the understanding of sin can and would be altered. Sin from the beginning of time is the same as it is today. It is the misuse of God’s gifts and the refusal to obey his laws.
It becomes quite clear after going over the working paper what the project is all about. Renaming and positing that the human condition is somehow different today than it was in the past is an attempt to justify behavior contrary to the Gospel. It matters little how many people agree with it or practice it; it will always remain against the order God has given to his people for their fulfillment.
Don’t fall for the gobbledygook the study published. The basic tenet of faith remains. Same-sex relationships degrade the person and cause harm to families, and are against the will of God for his people.