Archbp. Chaput to #Synod2018 – no “LGBTQ” in any Church document

Some people are concerned that the 2018 Synod (“walking together”) on Youth will be rigged to create unheard of new openings toward the normalization of homosexual acts and homosexualist identity.

Today I read at the Catholic Herald, the UK’s best Catholic weekly, that Philadelphia’s increasingly outspoken Archbishop Charles Chaput gave his intervention at the Synod and warned that the moniker “LGBT” should not be used in any Church document.

To which I say, “Bravo!”

You might recall that Archbp. Viganò, in his “Testimony” related that Francis said extremely unflattering things about Chaput.  Just the other day, a key member of Team Francis, Card. Baldisseri, Chief Rigger of the Synod of Bishops, took an oblique swipe at Chaput in his opening speech at this Synod because Chaput dared to make critical observations about the Synod’s working document, the Instrumentum LaborisWeigel said it best:

The IL is a 30,000-plus-word brick: a bloated, tedious doorstop full of sociologese but woefully lacking in spiritual or theological insight. Moreover, and more sadly, the IL has little to say about “the faith” except to hint on numerous occasions that its authors are somewhat embarrassed by Catholic teaching—and not because that teaching has been betrayed by churchmen of various ranks, but because that teaching challenges the world’s smug sureties about, and its fanatical commitment to, the sexual revolution in all its expressions.

Back to Chaput’s intervention.  The CH provides the text.  Here is his peroration:

Finally, what the Church holds to be true about human sexuality is not a stumbling block. It is the only real path to joy and wholeness. There is no such thing as an “LGBTQ Catholic” or a “transgender Catholic” or a “heterosexual Catholic”, as if our sexual appetites defined who we are; as if these designations described discrete communities of differing but equal integrity within the real ecclesial community, the body of Jesus Christ. This has never been true in the life of the Church, and is not true now. It follows that LGBTQ” and similar language should not be used in Church documents, because using it suggests that these are real, autonomous groups, and the Church simply doesn’t categorize people that way.

Explaining why Catholic teaching about human sexuality is true, and why it’s ennobling and merciful, seems crucial to any discussion of anthropological issues. Yet it’s regrettably missing from this chapter and this document. I hope revisions by the Synod Fathers can address that.

Fr. Z kudos.

UPDATE:

Right on cue, homosexualist and #sodoclericism activist Jesuit James Martin, LGBTQSJ reacts on Twitter:

The last tweet, embedded.

Note that what Martin does is promote division in the Church by emphasizing a small subgroup for which he claims special treatment.   Mind you, he is not claiming equal treatment.  He is claiming special treatment.   Ultimately, he is calling for normalization of sinful homosexual acts.    Forcing and forcing and forcing this label “LGBTQ” etc. is part of a long-term strategy.  And that strategy doesn’t end with normalization of homosexual acts.  The next goal is the lowering of the age of consent.  HERE

Some sharing options...

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Fr. Z KUDOS, Sin That Cries To Heaven, Synod and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Archbp. Chaput to #Synod2018 – no “LGBTQ” in any Church document

  1. teomatteo says:

    Maybe Fr. Martin has forgotten to add: HtLR (Human that Loves Robots). Let’s think outside the “bots” Fr M.

  2. Maximilian75 says:

    “Note that what Martin does is promote division in the Church by emphasizing a small subgroup…”

    Certainly, but can’t the same thing be said of the Tridentine Mass community sometimes?

    Let’s get the plank out of our own eye, first of all…

  3. SemperServusDei says:

    Hopefully theologian Nancy Pelosi is not at the synod urging the bishops to vote yes on the synod working document, and then read it after it is adopted…

  4. poohbear says:

    Just as the LGBT crowd has the right to “name themselves”, so does the Church.

  5. Kevin says:

    I know he belongs to a religious order…and I believe he can only be disciplined by that order (I may very well be wrong on that). But, I ask all Bishops to forbid this priest (little p) to speak publicly in their diocese. For an ordained man to have such little knowledge of the Gospel and the teaching of the Church is astounding to me. He is encouraging individuals to commit sodomy…amazing.

  6. MrsMacD says:

    Now lets not forget to name the Gluttonous Catholics who have been severely persecuted in the last 80 years, and maligned by everyone.
    Oh, and the Angry Catholics and the Slothful Catholics, the name your own sin Catholics, the create a new sin Catholics, Catholic witches and Catholic Satanists and all their rights and freedoms and license.

    “Every generation of Americans needs to know that freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought.” -JP II

  7. Joe in Canada says:

    If I am talking to Baptists I will use the word “church” out of an effort to be kind. If I am writing a Catholic document, I will not use the word “church” because by Catholic doctrine Baptists do not form a “church”. LGBT+ people can call themselves whatever they want, and out of politeness I might use that language sometime, but when the Catholic church is writing a document about Catholic teaching and pastoral care, she should use only Catholic language, which is carefully designed to express truth, not confusion.

  8. Midwest St. Michael says:

    For a little levity with all of the… alphabet soup acronyms, Deacon Jim Russell had a great piece over at Crisis in July of ’17 that is rather clever.

    It fairly well sums up the plight of those in the QTBGL community:

    https://www.crisismagazine.com/2017/orthophobia-marginalized-qtbgl-catholic

  9. Bellarmino Vianney says:

    None of this is a surprise. The Lavender Mafia has clearly been looking forward to this year’s synod for probably 50+ years. They probably have at least partially the goal of removing the Catechism’s labeling of homosexuality as objectively disordered and mortally sinful. Surely they have more goals than that, though, too.

    And while the efforts of Archbishop Chaput are somewhat laudable, his words seem watered-down and inaccurate. The reality is that the label “LGBTQ” is a blatant lie. One must call a spade a spade. Promoting, supporting, or condoning of LGBTQism will lead one to hell. Jesus – God – says in John 8:44ff that some people are “children of the devil”. Those who lie or promote lies, like those who promote, condone, or support LGBTQism are children of the devil. That is fact.

    Relatedly, those who support liberal/Leftist politicians are children of the devil according to God’s own words. One cannot get to heaven voting for, supporting, or being a Leftist politician.

    With regards to opposing LGBTism, though, it is mind-boggling how these priests, prelates, Cardinals, etc. blatantly ignore or mis-represent the exact focus, and also the actual words, of Jesus in the Gospel. Jesus’ focus was on getting people to heaven and He often spoke of how sin leads one to hell. Opposing LGBTQism by saying it “does not lead to joy” or it “is not ennobling” is not actually authentic teaching of Jesus Christ. Using those words waters down God’s teachings.

    And again, while Archbishop Chaput’s efforts are somewhat laudable, he and others could easily be shown to be false (and therefore heading down the path to hell) due to their watered-down descriptions of mortally sinful, intrinsically disordered actions and consented-to thoughts. There is not much leeway in what words are permissible to use to describe mortal sin/grave offenses against God. Their watered-down words ultimately end up changing God’s teachings. They are there to preserve God’s teachings, not change them.

  10. ChrisP says:

    There’s only one proper LGBT in the Church: Lets.Get.Back.to.Truth.
    But seriously, one can rail against Fr Martin SJ all one wants with the ferocity of a hurricane. It won’t work. All his writings and statements reveal, at core, a broken and angry mind raging in pain at the dichotomies in his soul. And like Francis Thompson, he is running from the hounds that seek to free him. Martin’s biggest problem is his only real concern – he is afraid of who he really is and how he will ultimately be accepted. Ergo, super ego has a lacunae with mental walls, far stronger than physical, around it, constructed for his very survival. Everything is then directed towards railing against anything that demands to see the lacunae – especially the truth. This isn’t pop-talk show psychology, it is the true experience of clinicians for decades. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/911694

    It is appropriate that the bones of Ambrose are revealed at this time: the Saint who received a formidable heretic back to the Church is signalling us, from left field, at this time of the synod, that it can happen again – right now. That heretics conversion though was won by tears, prayer and waging the war where it really is being fought. Ave Maria, gracia plenia……

  11. jjbulano says:

    God created one being — human. He created them man and woman. There is no LGBTQ in the creation narrative!!

  12. rdb says:

    Archbishop Chaput is to be highly praised for using his intervention to hold off the possibility of using LGBT in the final document. Others who were fighting for inclusion may still speak in favor of the term’s inclusion but it cannot be said that the synod fathers were unanimous in their support.
    Not in this topic exactly, but I wonder, how many of the synod fathers will speak on vocation, and specifically religious and priestly vocations?

  13. Seamus says:

    I wonder what the Latin for LGBT is.

  14. Bthompson says:

    My dictionary says cinaedus, draucus, or paedicator.

  15. tho says:

    God bless Archbishop Chaput.
    Fr. Martin’s saying that negroes prefer to be called African Americans, or blacks, does not define their behavior. But when you want a name to describe your behavior, legitimized, you are off base. Instead of calling me a thief, because I stole your watch, I would prefer that you refer to me, as a person who loves hands that move, HTM for short.
    A person who steals another persons watch can be accurately described as intrinsically disordered, and the Catechism uses the same definition to describe homosexuals.

  16. Dimitri_Cavalli says:

    Well, duh, everybody belongs to the body of Christ, including budget-cutters, members of the National Rifle Association, and opponents of campaign finace reform.

    Ask Fr. Martin if he believes in the existence of self-named “ex-gays,” people who once experienced same-sex attraction (and even engaged in homosexual sexual acts) but no longer do.

  17. Joy65 says:

    We should *******ALL******* remember that as Catholics it is NOT NOT NOT about us. It is about worshipping, adoring, praising and glorifying God. We should be all about service not how we are made comfortable by what we are called or being served.

  18. Pingback: Papal Aspirations: Day One of the Synod on Young People |

  19. Gregg the Obscure says:

    as others rightly pointed out, we don’t make special provisions for irascible Catholics, arrogant Catholics, or gluttonous Catholics. I’d add that it is highly disrespectful to characterize someone based solely on a sin he or she is prone to. especially true if that sin is “shameful even to mention”.

  20. hwriggles4 says:

    I thank shepherds like Chaput who are not afraid to discuss the elephant in the living room.

    Like many Catholics, I am one who has been skeptical of the “New Evangelization. ” Personally I find that many times my evangelization is within the Church. Why? Mediocre formation, poor turnouts at adult education seminars, lack of understanding of the Real Presence, Mass etiquette, etc. I realize that we cannot ask people to leave Mass (unless there are protestors in the narthex or something extremely disruptive) , but Catholics need to understand proper behavior and basic precepts to receive the Eucharist.

    That said, those cohabitating without being married, same sex couples, those in grave sin, those who haven’t been to Mass in a long time, those who haven’t been to confession in years (I am not perfect- went at least 13 years without going) , those divorced and remarried without an annulment, are welcome at Mass, but should refrain from receiving communion. It is sad that many Catholics don’t understand these fundamentals, and I find it difficult that in many large cities, a “roaming Catholic” can go to one parish for a reverent Mass, and then drive 20 minutes to find a 45 minute Mass with music from Marty Haugen and a quarter of the congregation leaving immediately after communion. (Don’t get me started about etiquette at certain Misas en espanol solo). It’s up to the laity many times to educate – it is about saving souls.

    That said, there are also non Catholics who attend Mass regularly with a Catholic spouse, and the majority I know respect the teaching and make the time to follow the Mass and participate. If I attend a Protestant service (i.e. Baptist, Methodist, non denominational) as a Catholic I would listen to the sermon and probably sing the hymns, but I would not walk up for symbolic communion with grape juice and wafers.