Benedict, Homosexuality and Equality Laws: What He's NOT Saying

Let me start with a couple of caveats that I'd like any readers to keep in mind. I do not think homosexual relationships are immoral; on the contrary: for years I've been a strong advocate of gay rights and have given money and time to the cause. I also think that the Roman Catholic's teachings on sexuality are flawed from top to bottom. But Benedict VI has objected to proposed laws in Britain that would ban discrimination against homosexual people. If we want to argue with he is saying, we need to be clear about what he isn't saying.

Consider a hypothetical case. Mary is in charge of hiring a new staff member for a Roman Catholic organization in a small town. There are two candidates and because it's a small town, Mary knows both of them personally. One, Alex, is heterosexual. The other, Robin, is homosexual by orientation but believes homosexual relations are wrong and leads a chaste life. Mary knows both of these things. Alex could do the job competently. But Robin, as it turns out, is clearly better qualified. Should Mary reject Robin for the position on the grounds that the Church is opposed to homosexuality?

What would the Pope say? Based on what the Church actually teaches (teachings that then-Cardinal Ratzinger had a large role in articulating) I'd expect him to say this: it would be wrong for Mary to reject Robin simply because Robin is homosexual. Repeat that: if Benedict were to speak consistently with Church teaching, he would say that this sort of discrimination would be wrong.

Now add a third candidate, Kerry. Kerry is homosexual and has a same-sex partner. Kerry also disagrees with Church teaching on homosexuality. However, Kerry is even better qualified than Robin. What would Benedict say about this case?

My understanding: he'd draw a line here. Neither Robin's nor Kerry's orientation is the issue. The issues are: how do they act on that orientation, and what are their views on the Church's teaching? Benedict's view, as I understand it, is that the law shouldn't compel the Church to erase that line.

Is this what the law would do? I don't know. I haven't studied the legislation and I'm not a lawyer. But if it would, I'd find that troubling. The trouble doesn't come from sympathy with the Church's teaching on sexuality; I'm utterly unsympathetic to that. The trouble is that, in general, if an organization is in the business of advocating certain views, it ought to be able to take that into account when it decides who to hire. Suppose an organization takes defending view X as part of its mission. If a job candidate publicly rejects view X or openly behaves in ways that X wouldn't allow, then in general, the organization ought to be able to take that into account.

Of course, there's a good deal else that's troubling in this case. My own view is that what the Church teaches about homosexuality is not just mistaken but has done a good deal of harm. Laws that forbid discrimination against homosexuals are a public recognition of the wrongness of the way gay people have so often been treated. The idea of granting exemptions is more than a little uncomfortable.

One way of doing rough justice might be to say that organizations who want to discriminate in this way should get no public funds. The Church, of course, gets no direct public funding. However, in the USA (can't speak about the UK) some Church organizations that provide social services do. One solution is to say: either don't discriminate or don't take public funds. On balance, that's the solution I incline towards, but it comes at a cost: some of these organizations provide valuable services that might not be easily replaced. That said, whatever the right solution, my purpose here was more limited: it was to be clear about what Benedict and the Church are not saying. Without that, there's no chance of a productive discussion.