The Response of Courage to the Decision of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith Concerning the Nugent-Gramick Matter

On July 13 it was made known that the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) had notified Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Father Robert Nugent, SDS that "they are permanently prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons." (Notification CDF, July 13, 1999. All other quotes are from this document unless otherwise specified.)

This was perceived by most of the secular media as too severe and unduly rigorous. One is hardly surprised by the reaction of secular media, but one could have hoped for a better response from the Leadership of Catholic Women Religious (LCWR) who vehemently opposed the decision of the CDF in the name of all its members. That leaders of Dignity and New Ways Ministry would decry this decision is not unexpected, given their premises; however, the Church has a right to expect from all Catholics, particularly religious, a religious assent of Faith to a statement of the CDF, approved by John Paul II. An article in The Catholic News Service(CNS), however, gave undue emphasis to the opinions of Catholic dissenters from the decision of the CDF. In light of this confusing publicity it is necessary to detail how the Vatican came to its decision concerning the writings and activities of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick.

The CDF decision came after eighteen years of dialogue between Church authorities in the United States and in the Vatican, on the one side, and Father Nugent and Sister Gramick on the other. Between l981 and l984 the then Archbishop James Hickey, of Washington, D.C., asked them to clarify misleading and ambiguous statements in their writings, and, not satisfied with their responses, he forbade them to continue their activities in the Archdiocese of Washington. At the same time the Congregation for Institutes for Consecrated Life and for Societies of Apostolic Life "ordered them to separate themselves totally and completely from ‘New Ways Ministry' ".

Though removing themselves from leadership positions, Nugent and Gramick nevertheless continued to "promote ambiguous positions on homosexuality and explicitly criticized documents of the Church's Magisterium on this issue" This caused Rome in l988 to establish a Commission "under the Presidency of Adam Cardinal Maida to study and evaluate their public statements and activities and to determine whether these were faithful to Catholic teaching on homosexuality."

The Commission chose to concentrate primarily on Nugent and Gramick's ‘Building Bridges' because it summarized "the activities and thinking" of the two religious, and it found "serious deficiencies in their writings and pastoral activities, which were incompatible with the fullness of Christian morality."

In l995 the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and for Societies of Apostolic Life handed over the entire case to the CDF, which then invited Nugent and Gramick "to respond unequivocally to certain questions regarding their position on the morality of homosexual acts and on the homosexual inclination." Thus, the CDF hoped that Nugent and Gramick would correct the errors in their writings, while affirming Catholic teaching on homosexuality. But this did not happen. "Their responses, dated February 22, 1996, were not sufficiently clear to dispel the serious ambiguities of their position."

Although they possessed a clear conceptual understanding of Catholic teaching on homosexuality , "they refrained from professing any adherence to that teaching." To make reconciliation more difficult, moreover, another book by Nugent and Gramick (1995), " ‘Voices of Hope: A Collection of Positive Catholic Writings on Gay and Lesbian Issues' had made it clear that there was no change in their opposition to fundamental elements of the Church's teaching."

Still the CDF would take another step toward resolution of the conflict. They asked each author "to respond to the ‘contestatio' personally and independently from the other, to allow them the greatest freedom in expressing their individual positions."

On May 6 and May 20, 1998 the Members of the Congregation "carefully evaluated the responses." They unanimously agreed that the responses of the two, "while containing certain positive elements, were unacceptable. In each case Father Nugent and Sister Gramick had sought to justify the publication of their books and neither had expressed personal adherence to the Church's teaching on homosexuality in sufficiently unequivocal terms."

Yet again the Congregation took another step by asking each to formulate a public declaration in which each expressed one's "personal interior assent to the teaching of the Catholic Church on homosexuality and to acknowledge that the two above mentioned books contained errors."

"Sister Gramick . . . simply refused to express any assent whatsoever to the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. Father Nugent was more responsive, but not unequivocal in his statement of interior assent to the teaching of the Church." This lead the CDF to give Father Nugent another chance to express unequivocal assent. But this attempt by the Congregation did not succeed. Not only did Father Nugent refuse to sign the declaration which he had received, but he also formulated an alternative text, "which modified the Congregation's declaration on certain important points. For example, he would not state "that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and he added a section which calls into question the definitive and unchangeable nature of Catholic doctrine in this area." Incidentally, both Dignity and New Ways Ministry have held that they intend to change the teaching of the Church on the morality of homosexual acts. New Ways Ministry claimed that they accept the present teaching of the Church, but they want to change it.

The refusal of both Father Nugent and Sister Gramick to accept the teaching of the Church, namely that all homogenital acts are "intrinsically evil", i.e., evil by their very nature, or under no circumstance good, and that the inclination to such acts, while not sinful in itself, is nonetheless, an "objective disorder" lead the CDF to permanently prohibit them "from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons". Its decision was approved by Pope John Paul II on May l4, 1999.

It should be noted that the CDF bent over backwards in its efforts to persuade Father Nugent and Sister Gramick to publicly give their unequivocal assent to the above Catholic teaching. This brings us to the next section of this essay, and that is how do we evaluate the response of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick to the decision of the CDF. Other responses will also be considered.

Responses to the CDF Decision on the Nugent-Gramick Matter

On July l4 Father Nugent responded to the CDF decision. In the beginning of his response he claims that his ministry has always been based "on authentic teachings of the Church and traditional theological and pastoral principles". Yet, as is seen from his responses to the CDF, he refuses to affirm a teaching found in both the CDF statement of l975, ‘Certain Problems of Sexual Ethics' (Personae Humanae, Dec. 29, 1975), section 9, and in the Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, Oct. 1,1986, section 3 (PCHP).

In section 9 of the 1975 statement, we read: "Sexual relations between persons of the same sex are necessarily and essentially disordered according to the objective moral order." In section 3 of PCHP the reader is referred back to section 9 of the l975 statement. "These (individual homosexual actions) were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being ‘intrinsically disordered', and able in no case to be approved of."

In the same section we have authentic teaching concerning the inclination to homosexual actions. "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder." Nugent also did not accept the homosexual inclination as an objective disorder.

While Nugent holds that the most serious charge against him "has been a perception by some of ‘ambiguity' ", we have the decision of the CDF that he refused to affirm the basic teachings concerning the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts and the inclination to such as an objective disorder.

Fr. Nugent questioned the competency of the members of the Maida Commission, appointed by the Vatican. I regard all of the members as thoroughly competent concerning the teaching of the Church on human sexuality and homosexuality. Adam Cardinal Maida was most fair and very patient in handling a very sensitive question.

Throughout the dialogues between Nugent and Gramick and the CDF, Nugent and Gramick are requested to avoid ambiguous expressions and to state clearly their interior assent to the teaching of the Church. But in the judgement of the CDF, they did not do so. The CDF insisted that they use the precise theological term "intrinsically evil" with reference to homosexual acts; however, Nugent changed the wording of the Profession of Faith submitted to him by the CDF on the score that the terms "intrinsically evil" and "objective disorder" were too technical and insensitive for pastoral guidance of persons with same-sex attractions, claiming that the emendations which he made in the Profession of Faith preserved the integral teaching of the Church as contained in the original Profession of Faith.

But the difficulty with his emendations is that "intrinsically evil" is a very exact term used in ecclesiastical documents to mean an action which is by its very nature evil, and under no cicumstances can be morally good. The term suggested by Nugent to replace "intrinscially evil" is "objectively immoral", but this term does not have the same meaning as "intrinsically evil". For example, "objectively immoral" may be used to describe an act of theft. Unjustly, one takes from another a thing to which he has no right; under certain circumstances, however, one may justify the taking of possessions of another, such as the situation where a mother steals some bread from a wealthy person to feed her starving children. In extreme situations, the right to food takes priority over the right to property. Thus the physical act of taking property from another is not evil by its very nature, but becomes evil under the circumstance of injustice.

As for Nugent's claim that terms like "intrinsically evil" and "objective disorder" are pastorally insensitive, I respond this is not so if they are clearly explained. Again, documents from Roman Congregations must use exact language dealing with the issue at hand to the persons for whom they are meant. There is nothing insensitive about this; moreover, by attempting to substitute "objectively immoral" for "intrinsically evil", Nugent allows the inference to be drawn that under certain circumstances homogenital acts are not intrinsically evil, just as it is not intrinsically evil if a poor mother steals bread for her starving children from a wealthy person. The Sacred Congregation knew better, rejecting this substitution.

The CDF, moreover, has the right to request a priest involved in the care of souls to give interior assent to the clear and authentic teaching of the Church. Certainly this would include the teaching that all homogenital activity is "intrinsically evil".

Having challenged Father Nugent on these issues, I want to add that I respect him as a priest religious, and I rejoice that he accepted the decision of the CDF and intends "to implement it accordingly". He is certainly in the prayers of Courage.

The Response of Sr. Jeannine Gramick to the CDF Decision

On July 23, 1999, Sister Jeannine Gramick responded to the decision of the CDF that she refrain from any future ministry to persons with homosexual inclinations. Having cancelled ministerial commitments for one month in order "to discern where God is calling me in the future", she asked for prayers, and we will pray that she accept the decision of the CDF.

Sr. Gramick refers to the process of investigation as "fundamentally unfair". She believes that the CDF had no business requesting her to give interior assent to the teaching that homogenital acts are "intrinsically evil" and that the inclination was an "objective disorder".

On the contrary, the CDF sees an important link between interior belief and public statements by anyone in the ministry of the Church. If one does not believe the Church's teaching to be true, how can one present it in a persuasive way? Again, the teaching of the Church on homosexuality is part of her teaching on human sexuality in general, and on marriage, and these truths are a fundamental part of the Church's doctrine on marriage.

It is difficult, moreover, to understand how one can claim to respect authority and at the same time describe the CDF's request for a declaration of assent as "both disrespectful and wrong".

Unfortunately, many supporters of Fr. Nugent and Sister Gramick have allowed their anger to overcome their reason, with the result that they vehemently oppose the decision of the CDF. They need to study the record of the investigation as the CDF has recorded it faithfully. It is a matter in which we place our trust in the competence and integrity of the CDF and in the judgement of our Holy Father, John Paul II, who approved its decision.Benefits of the CDF's Decision

The first benefit was bestowed upon all Roman Catholics who experience same-sex attractions. They know now beyond a shadow of a doubt, that all homogenital acts are "intrinsically evil" and that this teaching requires of us the assent of our hearts and minds.

The second benefit is shared by all Courage members, since it clears the theological air about the morality of homogenital acts and about the homosexual condition itself. Members of Courage and Encourage may regard this decision as an affirmation of their trust in our leaders who already have received the approval of the Pontifical Council for the Family: Speaking on behalf of the Holy See, Cardinal Lopez Trujillo said "This Pontifical Council for the Family supports the organization called COURAGE which was founded by Father John Harvey, OSFS, for helping homosexual persons to live in accordance with the laws of God and the teaching of His Church." (7 July 1994 - Prot. N216/93)

The third benefit redounds upon all the faithful in that the CDF has quieted the complaints that the Holy See is doing nothing to dispel the confusion of many who have come to believe that the judgements of their individual conscience take priority over the certain teaching of the Catholic Church (see "The Splendor of Truth" by Pope John Paul II).

Copyright (C) 2000 Courage