![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
In 2020, a Latin American university with a Catholic ethos suffered a crisis when the content of an online class on bioethics regarding homosexuality was posted on Twitter. This communications case study – in which names have been altered to protect confidentiality – describes the objective and subjective circumstances of the case, how the problem evolved, how different stakeholders reacted, and what the University did in order to cope with the crisis. It also narrates what the University did in the post-crisis period to prevent something similar from happening again. The study concludes with a brief analysis of the main takeaways that this case could offer to University authorities and, in general, to managers and communicators in Church-related institutions.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 From now on, we will offer some statistical information valid for the whole of Latin America, to avoid this case being attributed to any particular country. Despite the fact that differences from country to country are undeniable, this particular nation is in the middle of the spectrum and the general statistics therefore give a wholly acceptable reflection of its status.
2 For example, according to the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía of Mexico, the number of divorces between 1986 and 2018 has multiplied by four, although the number of marriages diminished by 3% (INEGI Citation2020). A similar trend can be detected in Brazil, where the Instituto Brasileño de Geografía y Estadística reported in 2018 than one of three marriages ended in divorce (IBGE 2018). In Argentina, the number of divorces since 2015, when President Cristina Fernandez changed the law in order to make divorce easier, increased by 41% in Buenos Aires alone (cf. Himitian, Evangelina y Bianca Pallaro. 2018. “Récord histórico en la ciudad en un año aumentaron un 41%.” La Nación, Dec 18).
3 Surveys show that 45.6% of births take place outside a legal marriage, and the trend between 1970 and 2015 shows a steep increase: births in consensual unions went from 16.8% to 38.9%, and the percentage of births to single mothers has doubled: from 7.3% to 15%. These figures show that the conception and education of children in marriage no longer prevails in Latin America (Castro Martín et al. Citation2011).
4 Recent studies indicate that 6.5 million abortions were procured in Latin America and the Caribbean in the period 2010–2014, a number notoriously bigger than the 4.4 million performed 10 years earlier (1990–1994). Cf. Guttmacher Institute, March 2018.
5 One of the main claims of gays and lesbians is in the legal recognition of same-sex unions as full-effect marriages. In Latin America, this is true of Argentina and [some states of] Mexico (2010), Uruguay and Brazil (2013), Puerto Rico (2015), Colombia (2016), Ecuador (2019), Costa Rica (2020) and Belize (2021). Today, however, Barbados, Bolivia, Chile, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, the Dominican Republic and Venezuela (although the first three do provide them legal protection as civil unions). Colonial territories (Aruba, Curacao, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Falklands, Suriname, Virgin Islands, etc.) follow the laws of their respective metropolitans. At the other extreme, homosexual relations are considered a crime in nine countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, including Jamaica and Guiana.
6 Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), nos. 2357–2359. This Catholic assessment has recently been confirmed by the Vatican’s doctrinal office: ‘Responsum of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to a dubium regarding the blessing of the unions of persons of the same sex’, 15 March 2021.
7 ‘The Church (…) celebrates the divine plan of the loving and live-giving union of men and women in the sacrament of marriage. (…) her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment.’ Congregation for the doctrine of the faith. 1986. ‘Letter to the bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons’, November 1: 7–9.
8 Congregation for the doctrine of the faith. 2003. ‘Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons’, June 3. The document is signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, and points out that ‘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’.
9 ‘[Marriage] is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself. (…) Creatures differ from one another and can be protected, or endangered, in different ways, as we know from daily experience. One such attack comes from laws or proposals which, in the name of fighting discrimination, strike at the biological basis of the difference between the sexes. I am thinking, for example, of certain countries in Europe, or North and South America’. Benedict XVI, address to the members of the Diplomatic Corps, 11-1-2010. It was a not-so-disguised reference to those countries in Europe and the Americas giving legal recognition as a marriage to same-sex unions. Cf. also his book-interview with Peter Seewald, Light of the World (Ratzinger and Seewald Citation2010).
10 ‘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’. It is unacceptable ‘that local Churches should be subjected to pressure in this matter and that international bodies should make financial aid to poor countries dependent on the introduction of laws to establish ‘marriage’ between persons of the same sex’. Francis. 2016. Amoris laetitia. March 19: 251. The Pope is here quoting one of the recommendations of the Synod of bishops held in Rome the previous year.
11 It would seem (the conditional is required, since the Vatican has not officially commented on this, despite numerous requests from bishops and media) that the Argentinian pope, in an interview with Valentina Alazraki, the Televisa correspondent in Rome, and speaking in his native language, distinguishes between marriage (only between a man and a woman) and ‘una ley de convivencia civil’, literally a ‘law of civil cohabitation’, commonly called a civil union. One of the differences, for instance, would be that civil unions don’t have a right to adopt children. When Alazraki reminded him that, when he was Archbishop of Buenos Aires, he opposed gay marriage, Francis responded: ‘I am a conservative. I’ve always defended doctrine. And it is curious about the law on homosexual marriage — it is a contradiction to speak of homosexual marriage. But what we have to create is a civil union law, that way they are legally covered. I defended that’ (Wooden, Cindy. 2020. “Transcript Shows Pope’s Distinction between Gay Marriage, Civil Unions.” Crux Now, October 27). These statements, released in 2020, were seen as an official support for same-sex civil unions (Cf. Winfield, Nicole. 2020. “Francis Becomes 1st Pope to Endorse Same-Sex Civil Unions.” Associated Press, October 21.) A few days later, on November 2, 2020, the Vatican’s Secretariat of State confirmed that interpretation: in a letter to papal nuncios, it clarified that the Pope opposed homosexual marriage and made clear he was referring to civil union laws, which some countries have enacted to regulate benefits such as health care. ‘It is clear that Pope Francis was referring to certain state provisions and certainly not the doctrine of the Church, which he has reaffirmed numerous times over the years’, the letter said. The statement struck many observers as a shift for the Catholic Church – which in the above-mentioned document from 2003 came out against any ‘legal recognition of homosexual unions’.
12 ‘Sometimes the term ‘disordered’ is misunderstood as if it were an (offensive) description of the person, as if he or she were “sin”, or as if any tendency towards the other sex is blameless. It's not enough for a sexual inclination to be heterosexual to make it moral. Pornography, premarital relationships, adultery, polygamy or sex with a minor are examples of disorderly heterosexual activities. But this does not include any moral judgment on the person, let alone hold them accountable for that tendency. Feeling this tendency is not a sin and is perfectly compatible with the highest degree of virtue: with holiness. Certainly, the term “disordered” may sound gravely offensive in light of homophobic insults throughout history. In fact, it is an adjective used for centuries in moral theology, before the modern science of psychiatry existed, and is not related to medical persecutions of homosexuals of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Homophobic language applies the term “deviated” to the homosexual person; the Church, on the other hand, talks about acts, not about people’ (Ivereigh, de la Cierva, and Valero Citation2019).
13 The causes of same-sex attraction and the role played by different factors (biological, social, personal behavior) in determining sexual orientation is an oft-debated issue in both the popular media and research communities, and evaluating the literature on the topic is quite daunting, because there is no scientific consensus. To mention two extremes: some authors (Weill Citation2008; Savic, García-Falgueras, and Swaab Citation2010) affirm there is no evidence at all of anything after birth affecting sexual orientation, while other research since the 1980s provide evidence on the contrary (Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith Citation1981, Van Wyk and Geist Citation1984). Research to find a “gay gene,” which could explain the genetic origin of homosexuality, has not paid off at the moment.
14 Two samples. At least eight studies on monozygotic twins (those with identical genetic heritage), conducted in Australia, the United States and Scandinavia over the past two decades, show that if an identical twin is same-sex, the chance of his twin having the same attraction is only 11% for men and 14% for women. These data indicate that genetic factors cannot be the only explanation: ‘The predominant factors that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other should be postnatal factors’ (Whitehead Citation2011). In addition, scientific research on human sexuality indicates that sexual desires are complex and difficult-to-measure phenomena, and that they are determined by many different factors, including the environment and experiences themselves; and that often change throughout life. These findings match research in neuroscience, which shows that the brain can be reconfigured over time through vital experiences such as behaviors and habits. ‘The human libido is not a hardwired, invariable biological urge but can be curiously fickle, easily altered by our psychology and the history of our sexual encounters (…) Sexual taste is influenced by culture and experience, and what is practiced then shapes the brain’ (Doidge Citation2014).
15 For instance, in his very last address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See, Pope John Paul II said: ‘Today the family is often threatened by social and cultural pressures that tend to undermine its stability, but in some countries the family is also threatened by legislation which – at times directly – challenge its natural structure, which is and must necessarily be that of a union between a man and a woman founded on marriage’. Under the title ‘Pope Denounces Gay Marriage’, Jason Horowitz wrote on The New York Times: ‘Pope John Paul II unequivocally condemned gay marriage and weighed in on a host of other social questions on Monday in a strongly worded message meant to define the position and agenda of the Roman Catholic Church’ (Horowitz, J. 2005. “Pope Denounces Gay Marriage.” The New York Times, November 1). Then, the Human Rights Campaign issued a statement condemning the Pope’s words: ‘Our families are threatened by a lack of legal protections said HRC's Lisa Bennett in a statement issued right after John Paul’s speech’ (HRC’s responds to Pope’s comments on marriage, 10 June 2005).
16 For instance: On 4 November 2005, the Vatican issued the ‘Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations With Regard to Persons With Homosexual Tendencies in View of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders’. The nine-page-long document said the Church cannot allow the priestly ordination of men who are active homosexuals, who have homosexual tendencies or who support the ‘gay culture.’ British newspaper The Independent commented: ‘The Catholic Church has forcefully restated its hostility to homosexuals, banning them from studying to become priests even if they declare they do not intend to become sexually active’ (Popham, P. 2005. “Pope Restates Ban on Gay Priests and Says Homosexuality Is ‘Disordered’.” The Independent, November 30. Given that the document was the first major one released by Joseph Ratzinger as Pope, the paper continued: ‘The document scotches any hope that homosexuals may have had that the Catholic Church under Pope Benedict might become more accommodating’.
17 ‘There is a basic incoherence between the Pope's words and the Church's teaching on homosexuality that in reality present serious moral dilemmas for Catholic mothers and fathers of LGBTQ children. At the end, it leaves parents with more questions than answers, and leaves children with continued vulnerability. (…) Family is the center and the heart of the LGBTQ movement's quest for equality. The pontiff's statement denigrates millions of children raised by LGBTQ parents, including those with unmarried heterosexual parents. Our children don't deserve this.’ ‘Seven Quotes That Make Pope Francis Complicated for LGBTQ People’, Human Rights Campaign (n.d.). More recently, in occasion of the CDF document mentioned in note No. 6, instructing Catholic priests not to offer blessings for same-sex couples because ‘God cannot bless sin. To the shock of LGBTQ + Catholics and allies globally, Pope Francis approved the decree. That approval is a betrayal, despite the many liberal-leaning LGBTQ + positive pronouncements heard during his papacy.’ Monroe, Irene. 2021. ‘Pope Francis Flip-Flops On LGBTQ Church Inclusion — Again.’ GBH News, March 25.
18 As part of the discussion of gay marriage in Peru in 2014 (a measure which was not legally approved), the writer stated: “Right now, in the predictable debate that this bill has provoked, the Peruvian Episcopal Conference, in a statement showing an antiquated attitude and gross ignorance, states that homosexualism would ‘contradict the natural order’, ‘attack human dignity’ and ‘threaten the sound orientation of children. (…). There is nothing that exaggerates sex life so much and comes to derail it to sometimes dizzying extremes more than repression and denial of sex. Shaken as it is by the cases of pedophilia that have affected it over almost the whole world, the Catholic Church should understand it better than anyone else and act accordingly in the face of this issue, that is, in a more modern and tolerant way.” Mario Vargas Llosa. 2014. “Salir de la barbarie.” El País, April 20.
19 Cf. Connaughton, Aidan. 2020. “Religiously Unaffiliated People More Likely Than Those with a Religion to Lean Left, Accept Homosexuality.” Pew Research Center. September 28.
20 Cf. Maldonado, Arturo. 2015. “How People Across Americas View Same Sex Marriage.” Vanderbilt University, June 1. Some of those percentages are remarkable: Argentina (80%), Mexico (72%) and Brazil (71%). Cf. Diamant, Jeff. 2020. “How Catholics around the World See Same-Sex Marriage, Homosexuality.” Pew Research Center, November 2.
21 Despite the fact that the document mentioned in note 5 was published by indication of Pope Francis, a number of cardinals and quite a few bishops rejected its guidelines and actively promoted different acts of resistance. From the moral point of view, theological dissent does not affect doctrine, but from a communications point view, it shows that the issue is not settled, and discussions will continue for a long time.
22 There is no official document stating which position a Catholic university should take in teaching about homosexuality. The legal and moral framework for Catholic Universities’ identity and activities is the apostolic constitution Ex Corde Ecclesiae, issued by John Paul II in 1990. The Polish pope reminds Catholic Universities that they are called to a continuous renewal, both as ‘Universities’ and as ‘Catholic’. For, ‘What is at stake is the very meaning of scientific and technological research, of social life and of culture, but, on an even more profound level, what is at stake is the very meaning of the human person’ (10), but it doesn’t specify more (which, in itself, shows how fast our society has changed in one generation).
23 This is not the case for all Catholic universities around the globe. Quite a few reject the official Catholic position on this matter, like, for instance, the Sacred Heart University (Connecticut, USA) which even boasts about it: cf. “Catholic University in New England ‘Affirms Support’ for LGBT Persons.” 2021. CNA, April 24.
24 Those situations regard practical questions, so there is a wide range of accommodating options available to avoid confrontation: cf., for instance, some suggestions offered by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Nevertheless, since these elements were not an issue in the specific case involving the Universidad de América del Sur (and because of lack of space) we won’t comment on those aspects in this case study but will be the main topic for a future research paper.
25 For instance, according to New Ways Ministry (an advocacy organization for LGBTQ Catholics), nearly two-thirds of the 230 Catholic colleges in United States have some kind of program, policy, or project that affirms LGBTQ students; about half of the Catholic universities in that country offer a university-recognized LGBTQ club. (Cf. ‘LGBTQ-friendly Catholic colleges and universities’, n.d.). Some universities also offer an LGBTQ resource center with hired full-time staff members dedicated to student services: Georgetown, Loyola Marymount University, Fordham, Marquette, DePaul University, Boston College, Seattle University, etc. Cf. Zakrzewski, Cat. 2013. “Catholic Colleges Respond to Demand for LGTBQ Resources.” US Today, August 12. Finally, Notre Dame University offers a special pastoral program for same-sex orientation (cf. https://friendsandallies.nd.edu/). There are also business schools with the same approach: for instance, McDonough School of Business, associated to Georgetown University. Cf. Spencer, Kyle. 2013. “A Rainbow Over Catholic Colleges.” The New York Times, July 30; and Odell, Catherine. 2010. “Welcome Is Mixed for Gays in Catholic Campuses.” National Catholic Reporter, November 15.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Yago de la Cierva
Dr. Yago de la Cierva is a senior lecturer on corporate communications at IESE Business School. He has also been in charge of the subject ‘Preventive Communication and Crisis Management’ at the Institutional Communication School of the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome since 2000. He specializes in crisis management, public affairs, and reputation.
Samanta Rico Méndez
Samanta Rico Méndez is a corporate communications specialist with more than 15 years’ experience, almost half of them at Christian-ethos universities. Interested in corporate and people management through communication.
Paulina Guzik
Dr. Paulina Guzik is a TV journalist and anchor for TVP, Polish Television, hosting a weekly Sunday program on Church current news. As an academic, she teaches and researches communications at the Pontifical University of John Paul II in Krakow, Poland. She collaborates with several Polish newspapers and contributes periodically to Cruxnow.com writing from Poland. During WYD 2016 she was a Director of International Media.