Baltimore Archdiocese’s Plan for LGBTQ+ Ministry Has Limitations

Editor’s Note: In the Archdiocese of Baltimore’s document discussed below, “LGBT” is the acronym used to refer to gender and sexual minorities. In this blog post, for accuracy’s sake, we will use “LGBT” when referring to the text, and we will use “LGBTQ+” in our commentary, which is the current style of Bondings 2.0.

Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore recently issued guidelines to pastoral personnel about ministry with LGBT people. The document, released in August, is entitled Like Every Disciple: LGBT Pastoral Accompaniment, and it is prefaced with a quotation from Pope Francis:

“… before all else comes the individual person, in his wholeness and dignity. And people should not be defined only by their sexual tendencies: let us not forget that God loves all his creatures, and we are destined to receive his infinite love.”

Given this title and quote, one might assume the document contains positive messages. That thought is somewhat correct. Lori offers a number of welcoming statements that are good for church leaders to offer to LGBT people. His encouragement to pastoral ministers to be gracious and to listen to LGBT people is very good advice, moving beyond the condemnatory, critical messages that too often greeted LGBT people who showed up to church in years past.In the opening section, Lori writes:

“Persons who may identify as LGBT are daughters and sons of God, they are our brothers and sisters in Christ, they are members of the Body of Christ, they are our family members and friends. Like every human person, they were created with a desire for intimacy with Jesus Christ. Like every disciple, LGBT persons are called to a lifelong journey of turning toward the Lord, seeking to know and love Him more and more deeply each day. The experience of LGBT persons means that they approach this journey of discipleship within a particular context, yet the deepest needs of their heart are the same. The Church, with a mother’s tenderness, never forsakes or abandons any of her children but seeks to draw them close and lead them to Christ, who fulfills their hearts’ desire.”

Yet, further into the document the archbishop places restrictions on LGBT ministry. For example, while he promotes the idea that parishes can establish ministries with LGBT people, saying that “nothing is more powerful than building relationships and walking together,” he also adds the caution that “Any parish engaging in any form of ministry with LGBT persons and their families must have my approval.” This requirement seems odd. If LGBT persons are “like every disciple,” as the document’s title says, then why does ministry with them need special permission that ministry with other disciples does not need?

Such a decision would only be positive if the archbishop were trying to avoid a priest or parish developing a ministry harmful to LGBTQ+ people, such as promoting conversion therapy. Nothing in the guidelines, however, indicate that this destructive model of ministry is on the archbishop’s radar. If the archbishop were concerned about eliminating this kind of “ministry,” he should have stated so clearly and firmly in these guidelines, and not doing so is a glaring error.

Similarly, the guidelines suggest that “personal accompaniment may be preferable to group meetings” when structuring parish ministry. In the overwhelming majority of parishes across the country with LGBTQ+ ministries, the format offered is usually group meetings. Why? There are many reasons, including the need for some LGBTQ+ people to emerge from isolation and shame through mutual recognition and support. Reserving LGBTQ+ ministry to only one-on-one conversations sends the signal that this is a dimension of human reality which must be kept private. Group meetings offer support to newcomers and signal to others in the church that LGBTQ+ people are welcome in the faith community. Most importantly, however, is that the one-to-one format is not a model proposed for ministries with any other community.

I was surprised to find in this document that Archbishop Lori warns against LGBT ministry becoming a platform to call for changing church teaching. I’ve been in touch with hundreds of parish LGBTQ+ ministries across the U.S. for over 30 years, and I can’t think of a single one which included advocacy for changing church teaching as part of their programs.

Furthermore, since at least 2013, a growing chorus of bishops has criticized some church teachings on sexual and gender ethics. And synod reports in recent years repeatedly show that Catholics are clamoring strongly for change. Given this lively debate at the church’s highest levels, examining church teaching critically is no longer a marginal activity. Is the archbishop working to stifle this debate?

LGBTQ+ ministry has been growing and expanding in the Archdiocese of Baltimore for at least a decade, and welcoming parishes have existed there even before that time. Good pastoral leadership and dedicated volunteers at St. Matthew Parish, Baltimore, paved the way for this growth by organizing and connecting parishes with LGBTQ+ ministry. A few years ago, the archbishop appointed a priest to be the archdiocesan coordinator of LGBT ministry, possibly in response to this growth, and I think this document is designed to provide parameters and direction to the new ministries that are being developed.

The history of LGBT ministry in Baltimore, however, actually goes back over 40 years when the Archdiocese of Baltimore issued a document on pastoral ministry in 1981. That document, while in some ways dated (e.g., it only discusses lesbian and gay people instead of the full-range of LGBTQ+ identities which are now in the public consciousness in ways they weren’t 40 years ago) is well worth reviewing, as its pastoral instincts remain relevant and helpful.

The 1981 document differs from the new guidelines in two significant ways:

1. The earlier document contains a section on the importance of conscience. The current guidelines do not discuss conscience at all.
2. The current guidelines suggest that LGBT ministry should not have a social justice component, while the 1981 document said that social justice should be an important part of this ministry.

Both conscience and social justice are critically important for LGBTQ+ ministry. The primacy of conscience is fundamental church teaching. No legitimate reason exists why LGBT people should be kept in the dark about this doctrine. And although LGBT people have made great advances in society over the past 40 years, they continue to face great amounts of discrimination and oppression, particularly transgender people.

The current political climate in the U.S. is increasingly hostile to LGBTQ+ people. Catholic ministry to other oppressed groups quite often includes acknowledgment of the social situations a population faces, and ministries work to alleviate oppression as part of pastoral care. LGBT ministry should not be prevented from doing likewise for the people it strives to serve.

If not for the controversy around LGBTQ+ issues, caused primarily by church teaching on sexuality and gender (and for which many in the church are calling for change), LGBTQ+ ministry would not be any different in format and content than most other ministries in the church. Placing conditions and limitations on LGBTQ+ ministry which would not be required by other ministries makes it difficult to see LGBT people as being “like every disciple.”

If the Archdiocese of Baltimore is sincere in its desire to promote ministry to LGBTQ+ people in its parishes, then it should have started by promoting models of ministry which are effective in other urban church centers–ministries which grow from the grassroots, not from the hierarchy, which gather people together, not isolate them from one another, which work to alleviate social oppression, not ignore the injustices that LGBTQ+ people experience. LGBTQ+ ministry should be taking steps forward from the good work already done by previous bishops and pastoral ministers. Restricting pastoral activity that promotes community and justice is not the way to go.

—Francis DeBernardo, New Ways Ministry, September 5, 2023