Tony Flannery

I suppose I have by now put in almost fifteen years as an activist in the Church Reform movement. In that time I have seen a lot of change, with the need for reform gradually penetrating to the authorities, and, with the help of Pope Francis, much more open discussion of the many and varied topics. 

That is all good. There is now no longer any problem about discussing Catholic sexual teaching, and in particular topics around contraception, divorce, LGBT; equally the place of women in the Church is now very much on the agenda, including playing a full part in decision making, and even in ministry. 

FR. JAMES KEENAN

In the recent discussions raised by San Diego Cardinal Robert McElroy on “radical inclusion,” for LGBTQ people and others in the Catholic Church, one obstacle posed is the consistent teaching of the church in sexual ethics. As a moral theologian, I believe it is worth knowing how and why those teachings were formed in the first place. History helps us to see that underlying that “consistency” are a number of matters that convey an overriding negative estimation of human sexuality.

Because of something I am currently involved in, I have had occasion to go back over all the documentation relating to my dismissal from priestly ministry eleven years ago, which I hadn’t done in a good number of years. It made again for interesting reading, especially coming at it from the perspective of that length of time. What really stood out for me now was the use made by my superior general of what is known in religious life terms as a ‘formal precept of obedience’.