LETTERS

National Catholic Reporter, Sept 3, 1999

Editor's note: Once again the Letters section is devoted to a single topic. Last issue it was Eugene Kennedy's provocative column on he death penalty; this week we hear from readers about the lifetime ban on pastorial ministry with gays and lesbians imposed by the Vatican on St. Jeannine Gramick and Fr. Robert Nugent (NCR, July 30). Documents connected to the Gramick and Nugent case can be found on the NCR Web site.

* We have attended several conferences presented by Sr. Jeannine Gramick and Fr. Robert Nugent. Parents of homosexual children and other family members gather and share their stories in a support group setting. Mainly we listen to each other and take strength from the group. Many of the first-timers have been living with the issue of their child's sexual orientation for a number of years.

Conferences have been held in retreat houses of various Catholic organizations, and representatives of the order or society have been in attendance. The sessions are a combination of public prayer, storytelling and reflection, concluding with Mass. We can state unequivocally that never once did we hear any statement or observe any action that was contradictory to the teachings of the Catholic church.

We find it shocking that a priest and nun who have given more than 20 years of their lives to advocating the human rights of our gay and lesbian children, and meeting their pastoral needs, would be silenced by the Vatican.

GEORGE and ELLEN CURRAN

Glen Mills, Pa.

* For the Vatican to order Gramick and Nugent to cease their work, which seems to be modeled directly on the kind of activity Jesus was constantly involved in, baffles and concerns me. Why is the official church -- in the name of rules -- clamping down on personal initiative to help those who need understanding and concern? I had always thought that Jesus' message was that rules were made to help humanity, not to hurt it. I think this is hurtful.

This is one more example of the repression of free conscience and the ability to perform works of love, just because it does not conform to the letter of the law that the magisterium has set down. I find it hard to reconcile this with my own understanding of the kind of behavior we, as Christians, are called to.

JANELLE LAZZO

Roeland Park, Kan.

* I am fully familiar with the published articles and oral utterances of Nugent and Gramick, having read their articles and attended their workshops and retreats. I know of no basis that would warrant the Vatican's condemnation and severe sanctions.

In justice, the basis for this action, other than alleged "ambiguities and errors," should be forthcoming.

WILLIAM F.X. GEOGHAN

Manhasset, N.Y.

* Nugent and Gramick were censured because they refused to condemn homosexuality as "intrinsically evil." Could the Vatican really have said that? Is not all of God's creation intrinsically good?

Nugent and Gramick have shown mercy and compassion to a segment of our church that is wounded and hurting. Rome seems to have no heart for them, but insists on separating them from us. It is like a curse, when what is needed in a blessing.

(Sr.) JOSEPHINE NIEMANN, SSND

Marthasville, Mo.

* The success of Cardinal James Hickey's long-pursued vendetta against Nugent and Gramick demonstrates anew the Vatican's ready sacrifice of credibility and respect where sex and dissent, even silent dissent, are concerned.

Now we have two "intrinsically evil" acts -- not use of nuclear weapons, not genocide, not ethnic cleansing, not willful complicity in killing tens of millions through starvation and disease when we have the means to feed them and to provide basic medical care. The only intrinsic evils in Rome's eyes are sexual -- abortion and homosexual congress.

Nugent and Gramick are condemned not for the wrongness of anything they have written or said but their failure to endorse with appropriate enthusiasm teachings that deny the sexuality of homosexuals by calling it "disordered."

The judgment proclaims in Broadway neon the sheer hypocrisy of the hierarchy, not to mention the ever-readiness of the U.S. bishops to do Rome's bidding. The stance is hypocritical because Rome strongly condemns birth control as immoral, and the pope regularly exhorts bishops and priests to promulgate that teaching, yet upwards of 95 percent of bishops and priests worldwide are silent about it. They know any such campaign would be generally ignored or add to the exodus of conscientious objectors. So how many bishops and priests have been removed from their ministry for negligence in not urging against the use of contraception?

WILLIAM H. SLAVICK

Portland, Maine.

* With regard to the silencing of Nugent and Gramick, I can only feel in an odd sort of way thankful for the gift of being labeled "objectively disordered." Why? Because it has only been by looking at this so-called "disorderedness" that I have realized I am really quite the opposite. I am very "ordered," very strong, very healthy and very holy. I have helped others, as a pastor, especially the most vulnerable, my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, to have this same healthy outlook about themselves. By truly discerning the negatively charged philosophical language used by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, I have been able to let go of being shamed, controlled and manipulated. Those sins (which I believe are about control and fear) I will leave to members of the curia and hierarchies of this world.