COMMENTARY BY JOANN PRINZIVALLI, in bold, on the document by the
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS
INTRODUCTION
1. In recent years, various questions relating to homosexuality have been addressed with some frequency by Pope John Paul II and by the relevant Dicasteries of the Holy See.(1)
My name is Joann Prinzivalli. I am one of the People of God, a Catholic Christian, a woman of transsexual experience, a lawyer admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of New York, an advocate for human rights and dignity for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities.
I believe that the Pope, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and other apologists for position of the Church’s magisterium on issues of homosexuality and transsexuality seem to be unaware of the error of their position. They have not taken into consideration a sensus fidelium, the mind of the People of God, in formulating and interpreting Church teaching. They show little understanding of the nature of homosexual and transsexual people, and little willingness to understand that we are a natural part of God’s creation.
It is unfortunate that the weight of Church tradition in its misinterpretation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture has continued, through documents promulgated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and other Church officials in the past thirty years.
It is the purpose of this writer to enlighten with a shining, burning lamp, to guide our putative shepherds out of their error, and to bring them into the light of the Truth. I am, however also mindful of Luke 4:24, and that indeed, this attempt to play prophet may not be accepted by my own Church and its hierarchy. But, as a Catholic woman of transsexual experience, I feel that I have been called by God to give testimony to the Truth, and I will not hide the light of Truth under a bushel basket.
Homosexuality is a troubling moral and social phenomenon, even in those countries where it does not present significant legal issues.
Homosexuality and transsexuality are not "troubling moral phenomena." There is nothing immoral about homosexually oriented persons or persons with gender identity that is not in accord with the sex assigned to them at birth. These "phenomena" are no more immoral than being left handed, even though the Latin term for "left" is "sinister." Like left-handedness, homosexual and transsexual people are guilty only of being members of minority groups based on their natures as created by God. Any implication that there are moral issues involved with orientation or identity is the result of an unfortunate and erroneous misrepresentation of scriptural sources.
In the Congregation’s 1986 document, the scriptural sources of the Traditional teaching are briefly raised in section 6:
6. Providing a basic plan for understanding this entire discussion of homosexuality is the theology of creation we find in Genesis. God, in his infinite wisdom and love, brings into existence all of reality as a reflection of his goodness. He fashions mankind, male and female, in his own image and likeness.
This fashioning of humankind as "male and female" is reflected in the second creation story, where God creates Adam in his original form as "male and female" and only draws out and separates Adam’s female nature from his male nature in the creation of Eve. If one believes that Adam was created "male" alone, then in the forming of Eve, God performed the first "sex change" surgery, a perfect surgery performed by God’s creative act, to make a female body out of a rib bearing male chromosomes.
Human beings, therefore, are nothing less than the work of God himself; and in the complementarity of the sexes, they are called to reflect the inner unity of the Creator. They do this in a striking way in their cooperation with him in the transmission of life by a mutual donation of the self to the other.
This complementarity does not necessarily imply that the only way humans can morally interact in a sexual manner must be in a one-man/one-woman marriage. The patriarchs and the Hebrews knew of the Creation story, and yet they practiced polygamy and concubinage.
In Genesis 3, we find that this truth about persons being an image of God has been obscured by original sin. There inevitably follows a loss of awareness of the covenantal character of the union these persons had with God and with each other. The human body retains its "spousal significance" but this is now clouded by sin. Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations.
The dismissive "there can be no doubt" statement regarding the sin of the men of Sodom does not flow from anything but a twisted reading of the biblical story. It is the same sore of twisting that leads Church tradition to read in a moral defect in mastubation from the story of Onan, whose sin was not merely "spilling his seed on the ground" but rather denying progeny, and thus eternal life, to his dead brother. God wanted Onan to impregnate his sister-in-law, and Onan disobeyed. It was neither "birth control" nor "masturbation" but the Church seems to think it qualifies as both.
Similarly, the exegesis of the story of the men of Sodom is one that involved not homosexuality, but violent inhospitality. The men of Sodom wished to gang-rape Lot’s angelic visitors, and then throw them out of town. Their sin was their lack of hospitality for the strangers in their midst. Only an inhospitable mind could construe the story of Sodom as a condemnation of homosexuality.
In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion.
It is clear that like nearly all the rest of the laws of the Covenant with the Hebrews, this law was overridden by the New Covenant. We must love God above all, and love our neighbors as we love ourselves. Our gay neighbors are our neighbors.
Understanding the nature of the prohibited act in the time of the Hebrews’ conquest of Canaan, one need only contextualize the prohibited act as being representative of worship activity among the Goddess religions whose practice was common with the Canaanites and many other peoples in the ancient Near East.
Against the background of this exposition of theocratic law, an eschatological perspective is developed by St. Paul when, in I Cor 6:9, he proposes the same doctrine and lists those who behave in a homosexual fashion among those who shall not enter the Kingdom of God.
The context in the chapter of 1 Corinthians is one regarding recourse to pagan courts. St. Paul may have been reeling off a list based on his days as an observant Jew. The translation and meaning of the terms may not be accurate – a sodomite is an inhospitable person, not a homosexual.
In Romans 1:18-32, still building on the moral traditions of his forebears, but in the new context of the confrontation between Christianity and the pagan society of his day, Paul uses homosexual behaviour as an example of the blindness which has overcome humankind. Instead of the original harmony between Creator and creatures, the acute distortion of idolatry has led to all kinds of moral excess. Paul is at a loss to find a clearer example of this disharmony than homosexual relations.
The problem with this interpretation, is that St. Paul clearly writes of persons acting against their natures. The references have to do with the orgiastic practices involved with the Goddess religions and their festivals, and have nothing to do with a homosexual relationship that is committed, monogamous and in accordance with the nature with which God has endowed these children of God’s creation.
Finally, 1 Tim. 1, in full continuity with the Biblical position, singles out those who spread wrong doctrine and in v. 10 explicitly names as sinners those who engage in homosexual acts.
The Greek word "arsenokoitai" does not refer to a homosexual relationship that is committed, monogamous and in accordance with the nature with which God has endowed these children of God’s creation.
It is clear that none of the biblical references used by the Congregation really have anything to do with the subject of gay or gender-neutral marriage laws adopted by pluralistic secular societies that operate under a moral code higher than that of the Biblical Hebrews. God commanded the Hebrews to impose capital punishment, commit genocide, and to do or avoid doing many other things that a more civilized society would eschew today.
The 1975 document Persona Humana, in dealing with homosexuality and masturbation, states the following:
VIII
At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.
A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.
In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God.[18] This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.
This 1975 document is clear that the Church understands that there may be a distinction between a person who is naturally heterosexual and who performs a "homosexual act against nature" and one who was created by God to have a homosexual sexual orientation. Rather than making the leap that the moral authority of the Church ought to recognize this nature, the Congregation retreats into an Aristotelian "intrinsic disorder" argument. According to a truly objective natural moral order, homosexual orientation and activity, in and of itself, is of neutral moral import, having no difference than the natural tendency of persons to use one hand or the other as the dominant hand.
Society is changing to allow homosexual and transsexual people to fit in, in accordance with their natures. The difficulty in understanding this is the root of the Congregation’s writings on the topic.
IX
The traditional Catholic doctrine that masturbation constitutes a grave moral disorder is often called into doubt or expressly denied today. It is said that psychology and sociology show that it is a normal phenomenon of sexual development, especially among the young. It is stated that there is real and serious fault only in the measure that the subject deliberately indulges in solitary pleasure closed in on self ("ipsation"), because in this case the act would indeed be radically opposed to the loving communion between persons of different sex which some hold is what is principally sought in the use of the sexual faculty.
This opinion is contradictory to the teaching and pastoral practice of the Catholic Church. Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the Magisterium of the Church - in the course of a constant tradition - and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act.[19] The main reason is that, whatever the motive for acting this way, the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes "the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love."[20] All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship. Even if it cannot be proved that Scripture condemns this sin by name, the tradition of the Church has rightly understood it to be condemned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of "impurity," "unchasteness" and other vices contrary to chastity and continence.
Sociological surveys are able to show the frequency of this disorder according to the places, populations or circumstances studied. In this way facts are discovered, but facts do not constitute a criterion for judging the moral value of human acts.[21] The frequency of the phenomenon in question is certainly to be linked with man's innate weakness following original sin; but it is also to be linked with the loss of a sense of God, with the corruption of morals engendered by the commercialization of vice, with the unrestrained licentiousness of so many public entertainments and publications, as well as with the neglect of modesty, which is the guardian of chastity.
On the subject of masturbation modern psychology provides much valid and useful information for formulating a more equitable judgment on moral responsibility and for orienting pastoral action. Psychology helps one to see how the immaturity of adolescence (which can sometimes persist after that age), psychological imbalance or habit can influence behavior, diminishing the deliberate character of the act and bringing about a situation whereby subjectively there may not always be serious fault. But in general, the absence of serious responsibility must not be presumed; this would be to misunderstand people's moral capacity.
In the pastoral ministry, in order to form an adequate judgment in concrete cases, the habitual behavior of people will be considered in its totality, not only with regard to the individual's practice of charity and of justice but also with regard to the individual's care in observing the particular precepts of chastity. In particular, one will have to examine whether the individual is using the necessary means, both natural and supernatural, which Christian asceticism from its long experience recommends for overcoming the passions and progressing in virtue.
It goes without saying, that the Church’s teaching on masturbation is one of the serious moral mistakes it makes, but that is not the topic for discussion at this time.
It gives rise to greater concern in those countries that have granted or intend to grant – legal recognition to homosexual unions, which may include the possibility of adopting children. The present Considerations do not contain new doctrinal elements; they seek rather to reiterate the essential points on this question and provide arguments drawn from reason which could be used by Bishops in preparing more specific interventions, appropriate to the different situations throughout the world, aimed at protecting and promoting the dignity of marriage, the foundation of the family, and the stability of society, of which this institution is a constitutive element.
The concern is misplaced. All of the goals are exemplary, but none of the goals are inconsistent with a civilized society recognizing the right of all of its citizens to enter into legally sanctioned family relationships. It may well be within the provenance of the Roman Catholic Church to refuse to sanctify gender-neutral marriage relationships based on its dubious interpretation of sacred scripture and tradition. But for the Catholic Church hierarchy to attempt to force its morally erroneous position onto secular society that is based on a higher moral code calling for equal treatment under the law and human rights for all people, is a serious mistake.
The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience. (
2)Christians, even Catholic Christians, are called to bear witness to the Truth. It is in the spirit of providing appropriate moral guidance that this writer is addressing the morally erroneous arguments presented by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in such a way as even those who have eyes but do not see, and those who have ears that do not hear, might begin to see and apprehend.
The sort of direction the Church seems to be giving to Catholic politicians in this and other documents is inimical to the very foundation of the tolerant secular society that is the ideal in the United States. True Catholic Christian conscience in this area would be tolerant of the idea that a secular society does not and should not have to operate under the auspices of Church doctrine, particularly where reasonable minds may differ on the interpretation of the sacred scripture. Even where the sacred scripture and tradition is clear, it is also clear that the teachings of the Catholic Church ought to be confined to the guidance of persons of the Catholic faith, and not imposed on the backs of those whose faith traditions and scriptures are different, or those who have no faith tradition or scripture at all.
Perhaps the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith should study the words of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 6, or the words of Jesus, that we render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.
Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.
I welcome the opportunity to challenge the conventional wisdom of the weight of tradition as to "natural moral law." The Church has placed entirely too much emphasis on the "natural law" observations of Aristotle as interpreted by St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and others, rather than paying attention to real science and the natural moral law that flows therefrom.
I. THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE
AND ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTERISTICS
2. The Church's teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world.
Until a few advanced Italian city-states abolished slavery during the Renaissance, the institution of slavery was recognized by all the major cultures of the world. Indeed, up to and even beyond that time, the weighty tradition of the Church and many Christian denominations supported slavery. The position taken by the Church and others included the concept that "slaves, be obedient to your masters." The Catholic teaching on marriage and the complementarity of the sexes when viewed in a positive way, is not wrong when applied as a shield to the large majority of Catholics who are heterosexually oriented and gendered in conformity with their original sex assignment – but when used as a sword against persons endowed by God with a homosexual or transsexual nature. Right Reason and Truth are on the side of those who recognize the inherent justice of permitting people who are different by nature to enter into moral, loving and natural family relationships.
Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(
3)It is well that the Catholic Church recognizes a special sacramental nature for the union of one man with one woman. But how does the Catholic Church define marriage as established by the Creator?
From Paragraph 1605 of the official Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.""
In the larger scheme of different cultures, even within the broad focus of the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic traditions, the patriarchs were allowed to have many wives and numerous concubines. Later practice among the Hebrews was to allow each man up to four wives, and this polygamous teaching I presently institutionalized in the Islamic Shariah. Polygamy was once also permitted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and is still sanctioned by sectarian Mormons who are not in union with the mainstream of that Church.
Marriage is not a purely human institution, but it is also not purely the provenance of the Church. Indeed, in the early Church, marriage was discouraged. St. Paul felt that it would be better for widows and others to remain celibate, but that marriage should be better than fornication (See 1 Corinthians 7).
The primary purpose of a marriage is to create a family relationship other than that formed by blood (genetics). Family relationships are established for mutual love, support, protection as well as for heterosexual marriages between persons of childbearing or potent capacity, for the procreation of children. Marriage is not denied by the Church to persons who are infertile, or post-menopausal, impotent or erectily dysfunctional.
While it is perfectly reasonable for the Church to make a distinction between a sacramental marriage between a man and a woman that can result in the procreation of natural offspring, the secular Society ought not turn its back on those whose loving family relationships are defined in a different way, whether children are involved or not.
One of the most distressing things I have read in recent years was a news story about official Church condemnation of an adoption by a transsexual woman in Spain, of a child of her deceased relatives. I cannot conceive of the reason for the condemnation except on the basis of ignorance on the part of the Church officials.
Vatican: Decision by court to allow transsexual to adopt "repugnant" |
The Vatican has strongly criticized the decision by a court in Spain to give custody of an 11-year-old girl to a transsexual. The transsexual, called Eva but born Alfredo, says she is a good mother and a devout Catholic who will continue sending her adopted daughter to a convent school. The girl’s natural mother died when she was a year old and her father, who lived as a couple with Eva for many years, died two-and-a-half years ago.
The Vatican, in its official newspaper, called the decision by the court in the southern city of Seville repugnant. It said the ruling was an insult to the institution of the family. The Vatican also said it resented the fact that many courts in the European Union appeared to be making similar decisions. The 11-year-old girl, who has not been named, first lost her natural mother when she was a year old. She was then brought up by her natural father and his new partner, a transsexual called Eva, who legally is still considered a man. The father died in February 1997 and Eva continued to care for the daughter until her maternal grandparents took her away and looked after her for 18 days.
There then followed a long battle in the courts for custody of the girl. The courts first sided with the grandparents, but an appeal court decided Eva would be the girl’s best guardian. Eva says she is a good mother and a devout Catholic who will continue to send the girl to a school run by nuns. I believe in equality for all, said Eva, who says she has always felt as though she were a woman. She is now in the process of changing sex and is saving the money for a full sex change operation. Eva says everyone knows her situation and she is accepted by the people in her neighborhood and by the other mothers at the girl’s school.
Psychiatric reports ordered by the courts say the girl is well-balanced and accepts Eva as her mother. Spain is a fast-modernizing, increasingly liberal country but Eva’s situation is still a long way from being accepted by all elements of the society. (BBC News, June 26, 1999))
No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.
It would be foolish to deny the special place that the Sacrament of Matrimony has within the Church. On the other hand, it is foolish of the Church to deny a special place for the communion of persons in a loving relationship that involves persons of the same sex or the same gender. While natural methods of procreation may not be possible, non-traditional families do sometimes allow for the upbringing of children.
Catholic teaching that "certainty" of the one-man/one-woman marriage as part of the human spirit apparently denies the historical record within the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions, as well as the nature of societies throughout history. Truth does not emerge from false statements.
Even assuming the right of the Church to assert the hardness of heart to withhold its spiritual sanctification from gender-neutral marriage, it is not the Church’s right to stand in the way of a secular society granting civil recognition to marriage that is gender-neutral.
3. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator's plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.
In the first place, man, the image of God, was created "male and female" (Gen 1:27).
Yes, if one looks at both Creation stories in Genesis, one can see some complementarity. Adam, as originally created, was in the image and likeness of God, "male and female" in nature. It is only later, that this original Adam is separated into two persons, one male, and one female.
If the Church chooses to teach that Adam was created as male in the first instance, then God next performs the very first sex-change surgery. God places Adam into a deep sleep, and removes a part of Adam’s body. The cells in a male Adam’s body were imbued with a 23rd chromosome pair that is XY. As a part of the creation of Eve, God would have had to have transformed those male cells into female cells with XX in the 23rd chromosome pair. Since God’s acts are perfect, the sex change that created Eve also made her naturally fertile and imbued her with a uterus and ovaries. Human surgeons have not yet been able to duplicate such a miracle in the sex reassignment surgery performed today.
It is also rather odd that the concentration on the creation by God of human beings as "male and female" as recited in Genesis, is not taken into context with the words of Jesus in Matthew 19:11-12. Indeed, the Bible contains over 20 references to eunuchs. The most telling are those words of Jesus, in which He acknowledges that some are eunuchs from birth, some are made eunuchs by men, and some become eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven.
Who are eunuchs? There was no word for intersexed or transsexual, or transgender people, or even the purely homosexual male who has no attraction to females at all.
In an enlightened and civilized society, it is possible for the secular culture to recognize that "eunuchs," transsexual or gay, can and should have the right to form loving and committed family relationships, recognized by society, even if the Church is unwilling or unable to condescend to sanctification.
Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.
The sort of complementarity the Church refers to has solely to do with the procreative aspect of marriage. This applies solely to marriages where the partners are capable of creating children. Many marriages are entered into, within the Church’s sacramental structure, which cannot result in the procreation of children.
The existence of one single reason for marriage between Catholic Christians ought not be used as a reason to deny the right to a marriage on a civil and secular societal level.
Indeed, the Catholic Church has long taught that where a non-Catholic marriage has been entered into by non-Catholics, and one of the spouses converts to Catholicism, and the other objects to becoming Catholic, the Catholic convert spouse may obtain a divorce and may later validly may a Catholic.
The Catholic catechism makes it clear that the Church’s authority over marriage is limited to the spiritual aspect, and concedes the civil aspect to the state.
Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. "That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh" (Gen 2:24).
This applies to the majority, which is heterosexual. It does not apply to homosexual or celibate individuals.
Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words "Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator's plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.
Again, it is clear that the argument is quite good and applicable to the sacrament of matrimony within the Church. It should not apply to a secular, tolerant and diverse society. And yet, for a majority of those within some forms of a secular society, the calling to a one-man/one-woman marriage makes sense, because that majority is heterosexual. Referring to the Catholic understanding of the Creator’s plan is all well and good for Catholics, but irrelevant to non-Catholics.
Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).
So, this, too, is all well and good, but the reference to Christian marriage or Catholic marriage is still limited to Catholics and/or Christians. What is it that Catholic teaching has to do with the secular civil marriage which is a society’s recognition of the establishment of a family relationship among the parties theto?
4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family.
There is absolutely no sensible or moral ground for the exclusion of the civil recognition of homosexual or transsexual people and their families. It is all well and good for the Church to persist in its erroneous understanding of natural law. It is quite another thing for the Church to do harm to those who are different. We are the test, and when the sheep are separated from the goats, at the time of judgment, those who are not tolerant of those whose God-created natures are different in the areas of sexual orientation or gender, will be wondering why they are numbered among the goats.
Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law.
Homosexuality is as immoral as left handedness, eye color, or race. It is no more immoral to be transsexual as it is to be Italian. It is natural for persons of a homosexual nature to engage in homosexual sexual activity. God purposely made homosexuals and transsexuals to provide variety in a natural human condition.
The Church, by categorically condemning homosexual sexual activity, denies homosexuals a natural outlet for their God-given sexuality. It is one thing for the Church to persist in an erroneous understanding of natural law, and quite another for the Church to work against a legitimate goal of a secular society to encourage as many people as possible to form stable, loving and caring family relationships for mutual protection and support.
Homosexual acts "close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved".(
4)Sadly, the Church Fathers and their successors in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith persist in the erroneous interpretation of natural law that indicates that where one sort of relationship is natural, good, better or higher, that any other form of relationship must somehow then be unnatural, evil, worse or lower. The Truth is that homosexual relationships are merely different. Not worse, not evil, and not unnatural, for persons whose sexual orientation was created by God to be homosexual.
Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts "as a serious depravity... (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10).
On must read and understand Sacred Scripture. Romans must be read in context. It is not a condemnation of any sort of loving, committed and monogamous homosexual relationship. It is, however, a condemnation of orgiastic religious practices in many of the religious traditions that were flourishing at the time St. Paul was writing. The fact that these orgies included heterosexual people acting in a manner contrary to their natures is cited by St. Paul as caused by these non-Christian religious traditions. The words translated in various ways in 1 Corinthians 6, similarly do not refer to monogamous gay relationships, but rather to promiscuous (catamite) and violent (sodomite) relationships that are not necessarily homosexual.
This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered".(
5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.Many Christian writers of the first centuries also accepted slavery as moral. Referring to homosexuality as an "anomaly" merely attests to the fact that persons of a homosexual nature to their sexual orientation are members of an oppressed minority. There is no "intrinsic disorder" to homosexuality or transsexuality. There is only a natural variety in the human condition as crated by a loving God.
Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided".(
7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8)When both Jesus and St. Paul say with regard to celibacy, that those who can accept it, should accept it, why does the Church throw roadblocks up against marriage for persons who are homosexual or transsexual?
I have not yet seen the full text of the Congregation’s sub secretum pronouncement against transsexuals, but I note that the document was circulated under the seal of secrecy, because the Church is ashamed to openly condemn people who are different.
The homosexual inclination is however "objectively disordered"(
9) and homosexual practices are "sins gravely contrary to chastity".(10)This "objective disorder" and "sin" issue is merely a matter of erroneous interpretation of scripture and a reliance on Aristotelian philosophy as a substitute for science. It is certainly the right of the Church to define what constitutes sinful behavior for Catholics, but even that definition does not rise above a sincere adverse understanding that comes from a properly formed conscience. As a Catholic, I reject the Aristotelian notion of natural law as excluding homosexual relationships from the realm of the natural. Aristotle is in error, and I see the reliance by the Magisterium of the Church upon an erroneous foundation as being analogous to building a tower on a foundation of quicksand.
II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
5. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.
This last recognition is certainly the best. It is in accordance with the quoted Catechism provision: tendencies "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided"
Where the government's policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons.
If it is a Christian responsibility to give witness to the whole moral Truth, then there is no issue. Homosexual activity is natural or homosexuals. Providing a societal framework in which homosexual persons are encouraged to form monogamous family relationships is good for both the homosexual persons and for the society as a whole. To do any less would be to unjustly discriminate against homosexual persons.
Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve:
unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology;
Ideology? Oh, the idea that society should encourage stable family relationships be formed by as many of the people as possible?
stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions;
What is immoral about a monogamous homosexual relationship? The Church would be far more fruitfully engaged in discouraging promiscuity among both heterosexual and homosexual persons. Even if the Church cannot sanctify gay marriages because of the erroneous foundation of its teachings on the subject, it can be seen as immoral for the Church to promote homosexual promiscuity by working against secular recognition of gender-neutral marriage.
reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality
What is the issue regarding public morality? And what are the "certain limits" that are involved?
and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon.
Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. People do not wake up one morning and choose to be homosexual. Young people don’t change their sexual orientation because they know people who are homosexual. Indeed, the studies of homosexual families where there are children indicate that the sexual orientation of the children in the families are no more likely to be homosexual than the incidence in the general population.
Gay and lesbian parents do not teach their children to be gay or lesbian. The assumption that they do so, or that they recruit young heterosexuals into a "gay lifestye" is as pernicious an accusation as the blood libel that Christians, even Catholics, once made against Jews.
If anything, secular approval of gender-neutral marriage laws would serve to stengthen mariage as an institution, for all people.
Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.
The only evil lies in the failure to avoid every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard.
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty.
This is contrary to the Catechism, and contrary to a true understanding of natural law. I can only pray that God will cause the members of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to soften their hearts and seek the Truth. As Moses said to Pharaoh, "Let my people go!"
One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.
It is clear that the Church ought to have every right to refuse to sanctify a homosexual civil marriage, even though that refusal is based on erroneous teachings. It is arguably okay for the Church to go against its Catechism and to encourage Catholic legislators to vote against, and executives to veto, legislation that would permit gender-neutral marriage.
However, that word "must," particularly when it involves the administration of justice, or the actions of an executive in accordance with a legally enacted law, is reprehensible. Holding a responsible position in a secular government thus becomes impossible for Catholics. A Catholic judge who has the authority to preside at civil marriage ceremonies, cannot legally or morally remain a judge at all, if she or he must refuse to officiate at a civilly legal gay marriage. There is no "pick and choose" when it comes to the administration of justice in a secular civil society. If the choice is framed between Caesar and God in such a way, then Catholic judges and governmental executives are called to resign.
Catholic hospitals will have to close, rather than allow homosexual spouses from visiting their sick or injured family member. Catholics will have to voluntarily divest themselves of the ownership of multiple family dwellings, rather than obey a non-discrimination law and rent an apartment to a homosexual married couple. If one applies the absurd mandate of the Congregation in this paragraph to all Catholics, then Catholics are being called to withdraw from secular society in any nation or state that enacts a gender-neutral marriage law.
III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL
RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.
The previous section ends in a fiasco, in which the Church appears to call upon Catholics to withdraw from secular society. Perhaps one might see this as the adoption of the principles of St. Paul as enunciated in 1 Corinthians 5 and 6.
From the order of right reason
The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(
11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12)So far, so good. Essentially, the individual is not bound to adhere to an evil law. This also applies when one applies "right reason" to the moral pronouncements of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and finds these pronouncements morally lacking.
Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(
13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex.There is no reason expressed here or elsewhere that justifies a failure to accept gender-neutral marriage laws that enable homosexuals to form civilly recognized family relationships, with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Why does the Church call for unjust discrimination in violation of its own Catechism? Creating a gender-neutral marriage law is inherently moral, consistent with natural law, recognized by right reason and certainly respects the inalienable right of all people, not just heterosexual people.
Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.
One does not logically follow from the other. In fact, recognition of gender-neutral marriage laws would only serve to strengthen he institution of marriage, by making it available for the purpose of family formation for persons who are by their nature non-heterosexual. In fact, opposition to gender-neutral marriage is contrary to the principles of a diverse secular society that is committed to human rights and dignity, and equal opportunities for all the members of its citizenry.
It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone.
A good question, and it seems to answer itself in favor of gender-neutral marriage laws.
In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure.
That would be a good thing. Encouraging persons of a homosexual sexual orientation to enter into monogamous marriage relationships would have the salutary effect of society encouraging societal stability and discouraging promiscuity. In addition to being a less stable lifestyle, promiscuity, whether it is engaged in by persons of a heterosexual or homosexual nature, can be seen as a vector for the transmission of sexually transmitted diseases. It is certainly in the interest of society as a whole to discourage the spread of sexually transmitted disease.
This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good.
As I have already indicated, the common good would actually be enhanced by society permitting gender-neutral marriage.
Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society, for good or for ill. They "play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour".(
14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation's perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.There is nothing here from which we can infer the truth of the baseless accusations. Even without the recognition of gender-neutral marriage, Western society has experienced a decline in marriage. The causes for this are many: the elimination of the common law of affiliation, the advent of easily obtained artificial birth control, the liberalization of divorce laws, and even the development of the drug Viagra. The recognition of gender-neutral marriage laws would actually be a counter to this trend against marriage and family. It would make it possible for a significant segment of society to enter into legally recognized marriage relationships, where this was previously not possible.
From the biological and anthropological order
7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition.
Here we go with those quaint Aristotelian philosophical notions. Human biology is really not at all that different from the biology of the animal kingdom. Both Aristotle’s ideas regarding the binary nature of sex, and Darwin’s ideas of "sexual selection," are overlaid with a distinct heterosexist and cisgendered assumption. Disinterested observers of nature have found that there is homosexuality in the animal kingdom. In some creatures, there is even a natural form of transsexual transition. Nature is filled with the very diversity that the Church and Western society has historically sought to suppress. It is only very recently that civilization has evolved past the evil of slavery. It is only fairly recently that the Church has abandoned its traditional teaching that the Jewish people are collectively responsible for the death of Christ. It is only fairly recently that the Church has overturned its unjust condemnation of Galileo.
Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race.
Because the vast majority of humans are heterosexually oriented by their nature, there is no danger to the human race that would emanate from the legal recognition of gender-neutral marriage.
The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(
15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.While some homosexual families, particularly lesbian families, engage in methods of artificial reproduction, some have children of adoption, or children from a previous heterosexual relationship, entered into in an attempt to conform to societal expectations but against the individual’s nature. The breakups of those prior heterosexual or cisgendered relationships are not due to the individual having a homosexual nature, but because of the expectations and pressure placed on these individuals by a society that values conformity, even for those who do not fit in.
Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.
The basic error arises again. Merely because heterosexual marriage is good for heterosexuals, does not mean that gay marriage is bad for gays. In fact, gay marriage is good for gays, while heterosexual marriage is bad for gays (A gay person who enters into a heterosexual marriage is likely to experience severe depression, frustration and anxiety, because the heterosexual relationship goes against the individual’s nature. It goes without saying, that same-sex marriage is contraindicated for heterosexuals.)
As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood.
That is a false statement. Studies I have seen indicate that children raised by same-sex parents are at least as well-adjusted as those raised by mixed-sex parents.
Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development.
That is not true. In fact, gay adoptive couples are often better parents than their heterosexual counterparts, possibly in part due to the fact that only the most persistent are actually able to adopt.
This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.
The best interests of the child would be to have loving and caring parents. That is something that gays and lesbians can do as well as straights.
From the social order
8. Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage.
While that principle is arguable, I will not argue the point. Spartan society in Greece was rather interesting, and other non-Western societies are based in communities, clans or other larger or extended family relationships, in which marriage may be a part, but not the foundation.
The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children.
That would not be the case. Heterosexual marriages, which would still account for the vast majority of marriages, will still be centered on the same factors they are today. The only difference would be the extension of marriage to a segment of society that now is unable to partake of the societal recognition of their families.
If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.
This is another non sequitur. One does not follow from the other. The common good would actually be enhanced by the recognition of gender-neutral marriage.
The principles of respect and non-discrimination cannot be invoked to support legal recognition of homosexual unions. Differentiating between persons or refusing social recognition or benefits is unacceptable only when it is contrary to justice.(
16) The denial of the social and legal status of marriage to forms of cohabitation that are not and cannot be marital is not opposed to justice; on the contrary, justice requires it.I was wondering when the Catechism issue would be addressed. Still, it is so obvious that the Magisterium’s logic fails again. If marital means forming a family recognized by society, then denial of the right to form a legal family is contrary to justice. The Congregation is calling on Catholics to ignore the Catechism.
Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State.
The state has every reason to promote the formation of stable family relationships. Partaking in a loving monogamous relationship with another person for mutual support and protection can certainly contribute to the development of the human person. It contributes to societal stability. The state has every reason to approve of gender-neutral marriage.
Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.
It ought to be clear that the conclusion above has no basis. The sole aspect of a gay marriage relationship that stands apart from a straight marriage relationship, is the procreation of children via natural means. Children may be present in a gay family by way of an earlier relationship of one or the other of the spouses. They may also be adopted.
A world facing a population crisis might well be called to encourage homosexual marriage precisely because such unions are not fecund. However, such a policy would not work, because attempting to impose an unnatural state on heterosexuals is just as morally repugnant as attempting to impose an unnatural state on homosexuals.
From the legal order
9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.
If a single difference in the fecundity of married couples could be so important, then it would follow that a society that faces an overpopulation problem should encourage homosexual marriages, not only for persons with a homosexual orientation, but for as many persons with a heterosexual orientation as possible. This would be to suppress the birth rate. It is obvious that this would not work, because it would involve encouraging heterosexuals to act in a manner not natural to their innate sexuality.
Given the situation we actually face, there is no reason for the Church leadership to place obstacles in the way of the recognition of gender-neutral marriage laws.
Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest.
In the United States of America, there are over a thousand quite specific rights that go with marriage. While it is true that a small number of rights associated with a marriage relationship can be duplicated by way of good estate planning and common forms of ownership of real and personal property, there are many other that are not possible or much more expensive. Take, for example, health insurance covering family members. The federal government taxes benefits for homosexual spouses, but not benefits for heterosexual spouses. The unjust discrimination cries out for change in the law. Render to Caesar – let secular governments provide equality for all. Render to God – allow the Church to refuse to sanctify homosexual marriages.
It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(
17)There is no sacrifice of the common good and no ham to the body of society. The common good would be enhanced by gender-neutral marriage laws, which would be just, moral and good.
IV. POSITIONS OF CATHOLIC POLITICIANS
WITH REGARD TO LEGISLATION IN FAVOUR
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
10. If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians.
Since the first premise has been conclusively proven to be incorrect and based on an erroneous understanding of sacred scripture and natural law, then the second premise is also incorrect.
Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
On the contrary, a real Catholic politician would be the sponsor of the bill and a strong advocate in favor of such a bill, as a matter of social justice. Opposing such a bill would be gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth.
The only moral possibility for the Catholic politician who opposes human rights, dignity and justice as a matter of obedience to the unjust mandate of the Magisterium, would be to resign political office. If no one can serve two masters, it would be advisable for Catholic legislative, executive and judicial to either make a moral choice as a matter of the exercise of a well informed conscience, or to obey the erroneous instructions of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. There is no justification for refusing to support a moral, just and fair law that would extend marriage rights to those who are persecuted, discriminated against, maligned and condemned, just because we are different.
If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter
Evangelium vitae, "could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality", on condition that his "absolute personal opposition" to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.If such a law were to be unjust or immoral, this advice could be reasonable - but the Church leadership is straining so hard to play into the prejudices against homosexual and transsexual people, that it is painfully obvious that it has no justifiable moral position on the matter of gender-neutral marriage.
CONCLUSION
11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions.
It is clear that this teaching of the Church is based on an erroneous understanding of Sacred Scripture and natural law.
The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society.
This sentence above is true.
Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity.
On the other hand, this sentence above is false. Homosexual behavior is merely different from heterosexual behavior. As heterosexual behavior is natural for persons with a heterosexual orientation, homosexual behavior is natural for persons with a homosexual orientation.
The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.
The Congregation is failing to defend the basic values which are the common inheritance of humanity, by the ill-considered publication of this document.
Just to make the process of how "tradition" can be so wrong, one need only review the history of the Catholic Church’s teachings against the Jewish people up to the Second Vatican Council, which is one element that led to the Holocaust, and the politically charged process by which the teachings were changed during the Council, with much opposition from the same sort of people who have been writing about homosexuality and the Church these past thirty years. The tradition of the Church is not inflexible, and it is possible for the Church to arrive at an understanding of humanity and nature that is in accord with a higher brand of morality than that which it currently professes.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience of March 28, 2003, approved the present Considerations, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered their publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003, Memorial of Saint Charles Lwanga and his Companions, Martyrs.
Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect
Angelo Amato, S.D.B.
Titular Archbishop of Sila
Secretary
The members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Most Holy Father, and all those who partake of the authority and responsibility of the Magisterium, which is supposed to be the teaching authority of the Church, would be wise to read Sacred Scripture, and in particular the 23rd Chapter of the Gospel according to St., Matthew, and reflect on the message of Our Lord Jesus Christ to the Scribes and Pharisees.
This document has been written and approved by the undersigned, a Child of God whose own transsexual nature has been questioned by the Magisterium in the form of a shameful "sub secretum" document prepared by the Congregation, and promulgated to Papal Nuncios in AD 2000, and only leaked to the press in January 2003.
Joann Marie Prinzivalli
Servant of God
White Plains, New York