Juan Carlos Cruz, the man who said that Pope Francis told him during a recent private meeting that God made him gay and that God loves him the way he is, says that his meeting with the pope is a model of how church leaders should welcome L.G.B.T. Catholics, even if he believes church teaching on homosexuality should change.
“He said, ‘Look Juan Carlos, the pope loves you this way. God made you like this and he loves you,’” Mr. Cruz recalled earlier this week.
In an interview with America, Mr. Cruz, a victim of sexual abuse by a Catholic priest in his native Chile, said that even if the church’s teaching on homosexuality remains unchanged, the pope’s words provide an example as to how L.G.B.T. Catholics can be welcomed in the church.
“I saw a compassionate man, I saw someone who was caring for someone, not worrying about if we are gay, straight, brown, white. He was hearing from someone who has been hurt, abused,” Mr. Cruz said.
“I saw someone who was caring for someone, not worrying about if we are gay, straight, brown, white.”
He said he told the pope that when he came forward with allegations of sexual abuse, leaders in the Chilean church, including Cardinal Javier Errazuriz, a member of the pope’s advisory council, said that because Mr. Cruz is gay, he was not a legitimate victim of abuse because he may have “liked” it.
This, he said, appeared to move the pope.
“I think the pope reacted to all that by just being the compassionate man he is,” Mr. Cruz said.
The Vatican is adhering to its policy of not commenting on the pope’s private conversations, but Mr. Cruz said he decided to share some of his side of the conversation with the pope—the vast majority of which he is keeping private, he said—because it was so closely linked to his own case. He has heard that other Catholics have suffered in similar ways and hopes the pope’s words can bring “healing” to others.
Mr. Cruz said he hopes the pope’s words can bring “healing” to others.
Debate over how L.G.B.T. Catholics should be treated by church officials has been constant since the early days of Francis’ papacy, when he asked “Who am I to judge?” in response to a question about gay priests. Later, a transgender man said he met with Pope Francis at the Vatican and the pope spent time with a former student and his male partner during his 2015 visit to the United States.
More recently, a number of high-ranking church officials have endorsed Building a Bridge, a book by Jesuit priest and America editor at large James Martin, in which he calls for church leaders to welcome L.G.B.T. Catholics. Just this week, Italian Archbishop Matteo Zuppi endorsed that call in a preface to the book’s Italian edition. But as some Catholics point out, Pope Francis has not changed church teaching on issues of sexuality, and he has spoken out strongly against what he dubs “gender ideology” a number of times.
As for Mr. Cruz, he said “the ideal would be to obviously change the teaching, of course, with nobody as a second class Catholic, or a second class citizen, just for belonging to the L.G.B.T. community.”
He thinks if the pope is able to meet, listen and welcome a gay man into the church, there is no excuse for other church leaders not to do the same.
“I think there is plenty of homophobia to go around, in the church, and it’s very sad.”
“There is no reason why every single pastor from the pope down cannot be welcoming to everybody. I think gay people in general have been hurt enough, and they are not second class and they deserve the same love and respect as anyone else,” he said, adding, “Nobody wants special treatment. Nobody.”
“Welcoming would be just integrating everybody into this great big community, that has people from every different walk of life, every different ethnicity, every different sexual orientation, every different nationality,” he said. “That is what Catholic means.”
Responding to a question about an interview given by Cardinal Gerhard Muller, as reported by Breitbart News, in which the former head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith said homophobia “simply does not exist, it is clearly an invention, an instrument of totalitarian domination over the minds of others,” Mr. Cruz sighed.
“I think there is plenty of homophobia to go around, in the church, and it’s very sad,” he said.
He recalled efforts by Chilean bishops to dismiss his complaints of sexual abuse because of his sexuality. And he noted that when the news broke about the pope’s words to him, he received a flood of emails, text messages and phone calls, many from other gay Catholics who had felt alienated from the church.
“Hopefully what is happening in Chile now is the beginning of the end of this culture of cover up among bishops.”
“I never expected this to become such a big topic,” he said. “At the same time, you can’t imagine how many people have written to me or texted me or emailed me or used social media, who have said, ‘This has changed my life.’”
“I have friends that have been kicked out of their home for being gay,” he continued. “One texted me and said, ‘I’m at the gym and I just saw something the pope said to you. Is it true?’ I said, ‘Yes, it’s true.’”
As for the bishops of Chile, all of whom submitted letters of resignation following a meeting with the pope, Mr. Cruz said he believes the pope should, and will, accept some immediately while investigating others. But he said action is needed, as “the eyes of the world are on Chile.”
“I doubt that there is one bishop [in Chile] who is not contaminated with this horror of hiding or committing abuse,” he said, adding that he hopes both the church and civil authorities hold negligent bishops accountable.
“Hopefully what is happening in Chile now is the beginning of the end of this culture of cover up among bishops,” he said. “Hopefully the Vatican is taking this very seriously and bishops around the world look at this and say, ‘Hmm, look what can happen to me.’”
Mr. Cruz said he still practices his Catholic faith, vowing early on during his fight for justice that he was not “going to let them win. They can hurt me in all kinds of ways, these bishops, but what I won’t let them do is take away something so precious to me, which is my faith.”
“I am Catholic. I go to church. I kept my faith when all odds were against it, and I thank God for that because it has sustained me to make me the person I am today,” he said.
As for Mr. Cruz, he said “the ideal would be to obviously change the teaching, of course, with nobody as a second class Catholic, or a second class citizen, just for belonging to the L.G.B.T. community.” - what teaching does Mr. Cruz want changed? Is he talking about sexual acts outside marriage, the Catholic understanding of marriage, Humanae Vitae? This is troubling. What remain unspoken in much of this talk of dialogue is what the goal is? Nothing the Holy Father has ever said indicates a desire to depart from Catholic teaching, so how does he give that impression?
I have become convinced that YOU do not even understand the "Catholic meaning of marriage." If you did, you'd understand that it is no less threatened by the Protestants' and the secularists' definition of "marriage" (which is in no way "sacramental" because eminently dissoluble) than it is by so-called "gay marriage" (which, like what is practised in America, is simply a civil marriage, and no more). And I also don't think you have ever gotten it through your head that Christ Himself didn't care much for "marriage" or for "families," and, instead, sought to remake both, when He greeted His Mother with the query "Who is my Mother?" and when He stood Mosaic "marriage" on its head, by making it indissoluble (going very much against what passed for "natural law" in His day). Like most American Catholics, you have succeeded in making Christ over in your own bourgeois and legalistic image.
There you go again, CML, taking your pet idiosyncratic view of natural marriage into self-contradiction. You support celibate gay marriage only because you think all non-Catholic marriage has no spiritual value in the eyes of the Lord. Do you doubt the authenticity of the wedding at Cana because it was a Jewish wedding, and the Jewish faith permitted divorce? When Jesus said (Mt 19): " “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” - He was speaking about Jewish marriage, which He recognized as valid and authentic and required to be indissoluble. Back to the drawing board for you.
"... you think all non-Catholic marriage has no spiritual value in the eyes of the Lord..."
No, not "all non-Catholic marriage," just "all...marriage" that is made with one eye cocked over one's shoulder looking at the institution of divorce for reassurance, as a "get out of jail" card. Unfortunately, that is most modern marriages in America. Also, I DO NOT "support celibate gay marriage"; the "sworn brotherhoods" of Alan Bray's book "The Friend," are not marriages, but, rather, public admissions that, for some men (and women), it is better to be united to a friend than a spouse. Also, Christ ENDED "Jewish marriage" (which was dissoluble) for His followers when He forbade divorce, except for adultery. But you, with your beam in your eye, know that...
CML - you support celibate masonic buddies vows but trash "all...marriage" in communities that have divorce, even if the couple keep their vows. How judgmental! - take that forest out of your eye. It is messing with your vision.
To Robert Lewis, You have a Hodge-Podge of Truth and Error in Your Post...I will only address the Error...You say that Christ Himself didn't care much for marriage or Families?...Say What?...Jesus' Comment about who is my mother or who are my Brethren but Those who do the will of my Father was to show how important that was, A type of Semiticism which emphasizes a Point. Similar to if Your right hand is an occasion of sin, Cut it off! And Recall that Jesus worked his first Miracle at the Wedding Feast at Cana. The Jews had a legitimate Marriage Ceremony in Jesus Day and still do! Jesus emphasis was on the Divorce that Moses allowed for stubborn people and showed that to be wrong. Marriage was not to be dissolved!...I believe that I have cleared up a couple of digressions from the Truth in your Post...John O., Missouri...USA
hahahahahaha! Your ignorance is fascinating!
Its true - only women are second class Catholics in our church. Voiceless and without any vote or having any sacramental authority. Our current clergy is likely made up of 40 percent of men who would prefer to have sex with men more than women or as well as with women. Homosexuals have an enormous say in our church. They just don't use it. Women have no say. This needs to change now. So as much as I feel bad for LGBT in our church, they still are not abused as much a women are by our church. My priorities are to cast out the misogyny first by demanding the immediate ordination of women priests and creation of female bishops and cardinals as there are ample qualified Catholic women already available to step into these vocations and positions right now, and then watch the other stupid biases against LGBT and married people being priests disappear quickly right afterwards.
Really Nora? I had no idea you felt that way.
Do I know you? I often speak out against the misogyny in our church laws, in many different articles. So I don't know if you are being sarcastic or if we have met online or elsewhere and I just don't remember you.
I was making a joke...you do find a way to talk about Church misogyny regardless of the topic.
I see now why Jesus was born when he was and not in the Age of the Internet. He'd have never survived the Comments section.
Sadly.....no one seems to remember that it is His Church, established according to His Will, in union with His Father and the Holy Spirit. Why don't these radical anti-Christian, anti-Catholic feminists just go do what Luther, and those other Protestants did, and create their own "church!" Satan will be glad to give them a hand I'm sure!
This isn't your church more than it is all of ours. Jesus was a feminist since he told everyone to treat everyone exactly the same way they wished to be treated. He did not support judging people by gender, race, ethnicity, wealth, or sexual strengths or weaknesses assuming those weaknesses do not add up to someone abusing someone else. Jesus ate more with prostitutes and the rif raf of the time than he did with clean and pure-in-appearance religious leaders. Why don't you leave and go make your own super-condemning only white, western men respecting church. There are plenty of Trump like evangelicals to keep you company while you practice pointing fingers at everyone around you.
:-) I sometimes imagine the following tableau: Jesus walks into a Catholic Mass during the homily asks to speak to the congregation. The homilist shoos him away, pointing out that cannon law requires that only an ordained homilist can preach.
Yeah no kidding. The absurdity that we would ever view anyone preaching the gospel during mass as a sin, especially based merely on their gender, is utter proof of how far off the Gospel path we have fallen.
:-) It would really be interesting to see how Jesus would respond to some of the comments. I recall the Nazarene carpenter speaking about removal of beams from one's own eye rather than the splinter from another's. Perhaps he might have commented along those lines.
Exactly! He'd be so shocked that the letter of the law has now become more important than the spirit of the law..
"Juan Carlos Cruz, the man who said that Pope Francis told him during a recent private meeting that God made him gay ".....
If the Pope has evidence that there is a "gay" gene that should be announced to the world with all supporting scientific data rather than in an unconfirmed private conversation.
I found the info for you. You're welcome.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2155810-what-do-the-new-gay-genes-tell-us-about-sexual-orientation/
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-gay-gene-new-evidence-supports-an-old-hypothesis
https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2015/jul/10/born-this-way-society-sexuality-gay-gene
http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/born-way-evolutionary-view-%E2%80%98gay-genes%E2%80%99/
After reviewing the first of your references it is obvious that there is no conclusive evidence that there is a genetic predisposition only a few mays, maybes, and the following:
"Are all men who have the “gay” variants of these genes gay?
No, says Sanders, because many other factors play a role, including the environment. “There are probably multiple genes involved, each with a fairly low effect,” he says. “There will be men who have the form of gene that increases the chance of being gay, but they won’t be gay.”
Because many genes and other factors seem likely to play a role in sexual orientation, this may explain why some people are bisexual or see sexual orientation as a spectrum.
What about women who are gay? Are there “lesbian genes”?
Our biological understanding of homosexuality in women lags behind. Some researchers say this is partly because women who have sex with women tend to be more fluid in their sexual orientation." In other words a choice not genetic.
There have been studies suggesting that there is a genetic element to homosexuality in women, but more research has been done in men, says Sanders.
Robin - since the first link has been addressed already, I went to the second one. Here's a quote: "And yet, in Sykes's view, it is highly unlikely there exists "a simple gay gene" that you either have or don't have. To put it another way, the idea that a simple gay gene exists "as a kind of mutation" is downright ludicrous, according to Sykes."
"downright ludicrous" seems pretty damning. In any case, all this talk is beside the moral point. There may be an inherited biological genetic predisposition to many things, some of which may be good and some bad. We make the judgment on goodness or badness based on other criteria. For example, it does not change the moral calculus on alcoholism, drug use, violence, rape, pedophilia, etc no matter how strong a genetic predisposition is found to be. If we found charity had a genetic predisposition, it wouldn't reduce the good of being charitable to those in need. If we found a genetic predisposition to the selection of a religious denomination, it would not increase the validity of the truth claims of that denomination.
God made us all as we are, healthy and sick to varying degrees, with different strengths and weaknesses, predispositions and proclivities. He loves us even in our deficiencies and wants all of us to be healthy, loving and good.
All of this talk of genetics is absurd. Nobody "born gay" (if he or she were) REMEMBERS when he or she "made a choice" (if he or she did), so the orientation was formed before what the Church calls "the age of reason," and the person is not responsible for the "choice," even if it were a choice. Common sense, and the witness of the gay folk (and of heterosexuals who also don't know WHEN they became decidedly heterosexual) tell us that the orientation soon becomes "hard wired." After that, the important thing is going to be what does the person DO with that immutable orientation? In that, I agree with Mr. O'Leary and the "conservatives" to some degree. Where we disagree is that I think that the orientation should be accepted and PUBLICLY embraced, as a "cross" that has the potential of effecting conversion, illumination and sanctification. There is nothing shameful about it, and, in a sense, it IS "God-given."
We must all love one another and treat each other with respect as we were all created in the image of God. This does not mean that we should pretend that sinful behavior is OK. To really love someone means to will the best for him.
Often, homosexual temptation is related to a feeling of woundedness, and of feeling left out. Sexual abuse is the CAUSE of many of these wounds.
God does not "make someone gay"; the "grooming" by the abuser and the sexual abuse was the cause of that wound. The abuser caused a great suffering in that young man's life.
Whenever there is great suffering, we always ask: "WHY would God allow this horrible thing to happen?" But we must remember that God does not will evil or sin.
IF it can be said that "God made someone gay", it would be in the same sense that God made me diabetic. It is not a good thing; it is a form of suffering. The good to be found in the midst of any kind of suffering comes from the attitude of: "What can I learn from this? How can I offer up this cross in order to serve God? How can I use what I learn from this to help others?
The same kinds of questions can be asked by those afflicted with homosexual temptation. The fact of having this temptation is not in itself a sin. What matters is the person's response.
So a Pope extended to another human being a sense of compassion, caring, love in spite of society’s denigrating definitions of who and what the person is. And he included in his statement that God also loves all human beings. Any objections?
There are very few Catholic “sinners” in church pews anymore because they have been slowly and inexorably disenfranchised by self-righteous and arrogant clergy and laity. The Pope apparently is trying to reverse that model of Catholicism. Good luck!
Mr. Cruz exemplifies those Catholic “sinners” who do not abandon the Faith and its practice in spite of the malevolence hurled at them from pulpits, Bishops’ public relations pronouncements and diocesan newspapers. Thank God!
Juan Carlos Cruz is a beautiful gay man who has suffered greatly at the hands of the institutional church, being sexually abused as a young boy by a well-respected cleric, and subsequently being psychologically and spiritually abused by Chilean cardinals who told him that as a gay man, he was living a life of perversion, that he wasn't worthy, and that he had probably liked the abuse because he was gay. Indeed, it is not too much of a stretch to claim that the institutional church abuses all gay people when it declares their sexual orientation to be an objective disorder, and their love-relationships to be intrinsically evil, as is borne out by the much higher rate of suicide ideation among LGBT youth. Some have argued that Pope Francis' words do nothing to change official church teaching on the objective disorder of homosexuality. I'm not convinced. Juan Carlos reports Pope Francis as saying "God made you this way and loves you this way, and it doesn't matter to me. The pope loves you this way, you must be happy the way you are." If God gifts some people with a gay sexual orientation, then it hardly follows that this orientation is an objective disorder ... rather, it seems that it is instead simply part of the spectacular variety of God's creation. In the words of Fr James Alison, being gay is a regularly occurring, non-pathological minority variant in the human condition, much like left-handedness. This is an interesting analogy, since people once argued that left-handedness was an objective disorder ... my 93-year-old Grandmother had her left hand tied behind her back as a young schoolgirl, and was forced to write with her right hand ... an astonishing form of reparative therapy that surely all would look upon with astonishment and disdain today.
For those commenting here who are mystified as to why LGBT people feel excluded by the church, I strongly recommend listening to the discussion between Fr James Alison and Rev Dr Sarah Bachelard on the meaning of homosexuality for today ... it is stunningly illuminating ... https://soundcloud.com/wccm/one-in-christ-james-alison-sarah-bachelard-150518/s-q2Rkr .
James also has an excellent reflection on what it means to be taught by Christ vis-à-vis the Magisterium, which provides valuable context to what is presently unfolding in the church and the world as regards the gay "thing" ... http://jamesalison.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/My-sheep-hear-my-voice-and-I-know-them.pdf .
Well said, Vincent ...
Alison is brilliant, and, in the end, the institutional Church IS going to pay heed to what he says.
Another homosexual man sexually abused as a child. God didn't make him that way; anecdotal and research evidence show similar environmental influences that lead men to adopt homosexual acts as an identity. Being sodomized by an older boy or man is one of the most common. These men and others who might end up like them need to be helped not have their conditions and the acts it leads to condoned.
There are plenty of homosexuals who were not abused as a child. And many heterosexuals who were abused. Your lack of basic understanding of biology, logical argument and basic humanity is quite sad. Even more sad? The vast majority of pedophiles are sexually heterosexual. The act of abuse involves a sex act, but is not sexually driven. Please educate yourself before you make idiotic statements with no basis in reality.
It is very chastiphobic (a real phobia) to pretend that there is such a thing as homophobia. Religion haters and the nominally religious who have allied themselves with anti-religious bigots have a real psychological need to believe that those who recognize the reality of homosexuality as a mental illness are motivated by a psychological fear when in fact it does not exist.
There is such a thing as homophobia, and it is intricately related to the "chastaphobia" you speak of. In fact, we live in the very culture which despises chastity more than almost all other virtue. This began with the Puritans and the anti-monastic Protestant Reformation and gained speed during the so-called "Enlightenment." The Catholic and Apostolic Church, which descends from Early Church Fathers who had little use for connubial relationships (as Christ Himself and Paul did not, either), does little to counter this, other than insisting that the celibacy and chastity of her ministers is valuable--which inevitably seems self-contradictory, as she pontificates about the central importance of "family" to her mission. (Ever heard a sermon preached about Christ's denial of His own "family"--which is Scriptural--or about the "sword" he came to put between "family" members? I haven't either.)
I can't imagine the pain that Mr. Cruz experienced by being sexually abused, and admire him for remaining a Catholic despite his suffering. As a gay Catholic, I was often taunted by the painful term ",faggot" by people who correctly assumed the truth about my orientation, even before I publicly revealed my sexual orientation. For a time in my early twenties (I'm now 56) I frequently deliberately ceased attending Mass, as I seriously doubted God's existence. Strangely perhaps, I still attempted to follow the Church's moral teachings, and was active in the educational, political action, and alternative -to-,abortion efforts of the pro-life movement. When I revealed my sexual orientation when I was in my early thirties to my family, friends, and co-workers (I worked with disabled people in different capacities, and for six years was a Special Education teacher of children with brain damage), I fortunately received love and support, despite the continued difficulty I experienced being gay. My life became rather complicated for a number of years. Like Mr. Cruz, I returned to regular attendance at Mass and believed in a merciful God. I admire Pope Francis for his compassion in telling Mr. Cruz that both God and he loves him. However, for a few years some time in the past, I had sex with men. However, I realized the error of my acts, and received forgiveness and consolation from a compassionate priest through the Sacrament of Reconciliation. I do believe in Church teaching that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, as I believe this reflects the teaching of our Lord and Savior Jesus. As like most of us I continue to sin in various ways, and once a month my kind pastor visits me at the quality nursing home/rehabilitation center where I'm fortunate to live, and to go the Sacrament of Reconciliation. While I tend to be impatient and sometimes eat unhealthy foods, I try to eat a good diet, and assist my friends/fellow residents with their personal needs. I also am fortunate that one of my family members (usually my loving but elderly Mom) visits me at the rehab about twice a week, and we enjoy each other's company, and walk to the local McDonald's for a healthy lunch once a week. Also, my friend visits in occasion, and I do occasionally call a gay friend, with whom I worked with years ago. Although we disagree about gay marriage, we respect each other and get along well. I agree with Mr. Cruz that despite real differences with others, that each one of us can and should respect other people regardless of their race, faith, sexual orientation, or ultimately other characteristic, while remaining true to one's values.