Mario Gerada, Author at The Critical Institute

Where are my Latin sisters
Still praying to Virgin Mary
Rosarios, Novenas, Pomesas, despojos
Ave María purísima!
Forgive me for loving you
The way I do
(Vega 1994: 240)[i]

The Curia’s resistant response to the Bill proposing the criminalization of Conversion Therapy provoked strong reactions. As a country, Malta did move far ahead when it comes to legislating to ensure and safeguard the rights of LGBTI communities. But what the Curia’s response tells us, is that the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in Malta is struggling to negotiate between the changes that have taken place within our society, its own understanding and framing of homosexuality, and official teachings which do tie the hands of religious people, particularly Bishops and the Pope, even though in practice it is often talk about sex and sexuality that seems to create panic the most. One has to point out, though, that Pope Francis did bring some balance and has ruffled some feathers on a number of other issues too.

The Curia’s position paper is to say the least highly problematic (and these have been pointed out by some in the media). At the same time, it does raise interesting, though not unproblematic philosophical questions which should not be entirely dismissed, particularly in regard to individual freedom. The bill does not address the issue of ‘praying over’, often a substitute for conversion therapy. These practices take place in both evangelical and Roman Catholic prayer groups, and as it seems these will continue to take place unquestioned- the bill only limits the practice of professionals. The Curia’s position articulates a number of questions: isn’t an (adult) individual free to choose to repress his or her sexual desires if that person wants to? Aren’t adults who are unhappy with their sexual orientation free to seek conversion therapy if they wish to do so? This is a troubling question, yet one that does raise some issues at the same time. How free is the individual to harm himself or herself? We do know that conversion therapies are deceitful because they promise what we all know can’t be guaranteed with definite assurance. Furthermore, many individuals have and continue to be harmed mainly through North American style boot camps. Peterson Toscano spent seventeen years of his life attempting to change and repress his same-sex orientation and gender differences. He then went on to come out of the closet. He was invited by the Maltese LGBTI Catholic organization Drachma twice to specifically address the matter. At the root of the discussion is not conversion therapy per se, but the understanding of homosexuality as defective heterosexuality and therefore, from that kind of understanding, conversion therapy must therefore follow- to correct.

The Church’s document raises another important point. It reflects the concerns of some professionals, who, while they do not want to practice conversion therapy, still feel uncertain on the consequences of taking the path of criminalization. I personally feel that there needs to be further dialogue here to address these fears and concerns. Some professionals are asking: at what point can a session become defined as conversion therapy, especially when discussing sexuality with clients who are uncertain and/or confused about their own sexual orientation and sexual desires? Can professionals be falsely accused by clients? Such questions need to be part of the dialogue.

And yet, there is one point raised by the Curia’s position paper that is extremely interesting and that we seem to have missed in the barrage of press releases and commentaries. The document which the Roman Catholic Church released, tells us that human sexuality can in actual fact be fluid and not confined to gender binaries. This is obviously no news to those who live their sexuality fluidly on a day to day basis, and are comfortable with it. Still, it does reflect at least some alertness and sensitivity to the notion that some may need and want help to better understand their sexual desires and directions they want to take, especially when they do not find themselves in any of the accepted categories that describe and articulate accepted human sexuality.

Interestingly, at the point when Government is legislating to normalize and mainstream sexual diversity, the Roman Catholic Church in Malta is paradoxically and most likely unknowingly saying: ‘Wait! Sexuality is a queer thing!’ While placing a moral judgment on some of those desires, and forcing people in a direction not congruent with their own ‘nature’ and desires is harmful, sexuality, like religion, one may surmise can well be a queer thing indeed. And now we have an official position paper, from the Maltese Curia saying there is a grey area and a complexity to human sexuality and orientations. So now we can perhaps (and finally) start having a serious anthropological-theological discussion about that. (Sadly the Curia’s position paper throws in pedophilia in the grey mix – apologies followed later).

At long last, at least in theory, and if we are to follow any logic in the implications (intended or otherwise), we may then be able to talk with Church authorities about the actual experience of human sexuality including its fluidity and queerness – let’s call them grey areas. As we have been saying for a very long time, the actual human experience of sexuality does not necessarily fit either the gender binary (the Adam and Eve narrative(s) often used (wrongly) to enforce that understanding of human sexuality in religious circles), nor the LGBTIQ narrative, that may perhaps be re-confining us in the same way that the gender binary previously did (though it offers a far more positive and affirmative narrative). The issue here is the creation of categories to understand a human sexuality that is itself always defied and subverted by the experiences of human beings. Another critique is that the LGBTIQ discourse is a Western conceptualization of human sexuality, and many in the so called global South fail to identify with those categories, even though there are men who have sex with men, women who love women… Others use different definitions such as sexual and gender nonconformity – language can be indeed limited when it comes to capturing the breadth and depth of the experiences of human sexuality.

Religious and secular definitions of human sexuality often oppose each other in their understanding of what human sexuality is, and what it is for, yet mirror each other in trying to define sexuality through the creation of some or other bounded category within which human sexuality is to be boxed. The document, therefore, most likely unknowingly raises an interesting point about that experience of sexuality, one that cannot be categorized. This, I reckon, may be an avenue for discussion between secular and religious narratives, and possibly also between global North and South narratives as well.

Secular and religious leaders (not only the Roman Catholic ones) use different starting points to discuss human sexuality and its expression, and it is here that disconnections are wide and deep. What used to be considered as undesirable, is not entirely so from a secular legal point of view and the Church in Malta (not only) is not too sure what to do about all these (‘unexpected’) social developments.

The Roman Catholic Church (again not only) is stuck here. Its tradition and official teachings about human sexuality are not helping it in engaging in dialogue with today’s society. For those of us who have been critically engaged on issues of faith, sexuality, religion and spirituality, we also know that tradition itself and the entire teachings need not necessarily be dismissed, but can instead become tools to help those for whom faith remains an important part of their own lives, to re-visit those same teachings, and to critically rediscover the message of Jesus as liberating rather than an oppressive one.

Pope Francis’ statement ‘who am I to judge’ is tremendously helpful, yet not helpful enough. It does not help the Church in Malta (or any other country) to engage with secular societies and the legal changes to protect LGBTI people and at the same time align itself with those who are opposing these developments. Pope Francis’ message is often very well received, but at the same time can come across as confusing: acceptance limited to a pastoral level, while opposing legal reforms in favor of civil unions. And of course one could say he can’t do otherwise because the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are what they are. There can be no change from the side of the Church, unless there is a profound transformation of the understanding of human sexuality, but how can the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church make such a break from two thousand years of traditions and teachings about human sexuality, and more particularly about homosexuality? But it is also true that when digging through the layers of tradition, other stories emerge, and same-sex love (always interpreted as non physical) is no novelty for Roman Catholic Tradition, and we find quite a few of those narratives in scripture as well.

The Roman Catholic Church is desperately in need of a new language about human sexuality, and it needs to listen to all research and lay findings and perspectives that have emerged in the past decades across a range of disciplines and sub-disciplines including psychology, anthropology, sociology, queer studies, gender studies, and disability studies among others. It needs to first become comfortable with and then engage a discourse that is inclusive of intimacy, pleasure, and playful delight. It needs to include the role that passion (eros) plays in leading people into relationships and communion, and at times also into conflict and violence. It is here that the Church could offer inspiration in helping societies reflect about sexuality in all of its dimensions, as a potential force for people to enjoy bodily and other pleasures, flourish and construct meaningful relationships or as a force that could also lead to the path of self-destruction or that of others.

The way sexuality is framed and presented by Church authorities does influence the way people live with, and experience their sexual passions, and at times, especially for those of us who happen to be LGBTIQ, this influence is not a positive one (generally speaking). While theological discourse about human sexuality is affirmative – life is good (for heterosexual people), its application is often limited and fails to offer clear and practical guidance in general. Church authorities do have a knack for coming across as having an entirely negative understanding of human sexuality at a popular level. The Roman Catholic Church needs to learn or re-learn to talk about sex.

The Church itself has a number of religious and lay people, including theologians, who offer this kind of language already, and these are often marginalized. If the Church wants to be vibrant once more, the hierarchy needs to lend its ears to critical theologians and pastoral leaders, and not sideline them or even persecute them. I am recalling Don Andrea Gallo who passed away in 2013, and who often called on powerful authorities within the Roman Catholic Church to develop a more liberating theology of human sexuality that is inclusive of sexual diversity.

The Roman Catholic Church in Malta (and not only) needs to stop functioning like a museum of handed down traditions, of teachings that can only be ‘transferred’ rather than ones that are actively and critically questioned and renegotiated. Rabbi Steven Greenberg tells us that religious traditions need to work their truths through life, and not above it, they need to work inside and across its complexities. Maybe it is time to remember that Roman Catholics may have flirted too much with Greek philosophy and need to rediscover the roots of the rebel rabbi we follow inside, to re-learn from Jewish traditions, where questions are the hallmark of engaging with sacred text, and to remember that religious law should not command the impossible. Jewish teachings could help us deepen our understanding of human sexuality (of course homosexuality a contentious issue there as well).

Catholics need to interrogate those beliefs that led so many baptized LGBTI as well as theologians into exile, while traumatizing so many others, notably the families of those ‘exiled’. We need to reject the idol god fabricated and sold over the years that seems to have a constant hang-up on human sexual desires. The Roman Catholic Church has an opportunity to engage and re-discover the meanings and reasons behind its own sexual rules. After all, Christianity views human sexuality as both a gift and as sacred ground, but only within a set of parameters, and this understanding excludes many other forms of human sexuality, viewed negatively – as flaws in human nature (at least in official teachings). It is time to expand on the sacredness discourse, and also for the hierarchy to ask itself: what is the experience and expression of human sexuality (including its ‘shadow aspect’, that is when it is not life-giving but violent, and used as a weapon to harm others) telling us about our Creator and creation for those who believe? Can those understandings inspire secular society?

If the Roman Catholic Church finds the courage to embark on such a journey, it could offer a service to our contemporary society, where some of the sexually liberated may be searching for a deeper and more meaningful understanding of that liberation. At the very least, those who believe and follow Church teachings, need some of the heavy weight, burden and guilt lifted off their shoulders, because all this does is push people away or forces them to turn inwards.

The Church itself is in dire need to start engaging with and incorporating that which is sexual and spiritual within its understanding of all human beings, including their spirituality, beyond the heteronormative understanding of Creation. And maybe, a secular society with all of its advancements (and misconceptions), could be the fertile ground for today’s Church to find that space for much needed renewal on sexual matters. Maybe secular society needs to also learn not to entirely reject its complex religious history, and be humble enough to also admit that possibly, learning to dialogue with this Other, could be fruitful for society at large. And it is in the fissures, that points of encounter can perhaps be found.

Mario Gerada is a Maltese activist who tries to navigate between his gay and Roman Catholic identities. Faith, sexuality, religion and spirituality are also academic interests he’s been grappling with for the past fifteen years or so. He is one of the founding members of Drachma LGBTI and Drachma Parents’ Groups.

[i] Vega, B. (1994) Adónde está la Salsa en SalsaSoul? In Althaus-Reid, M. (2003), The Queer God, Oxon: Routledge.

On the 22^nd of February, The Times of Malta reported the following news entitled ‘Pilgrimage to pray for rain in Gozo’:

“Gozo Bishop Mario Grech next Sunday will lead a pilgrimage to pray for rain. The pilgrimage will be held in Qala, Gozo in the afternoon, starting from the parish church and proceeding down to the old church of the Assumption, also in Qala. A statue of the redeemer will be carried in procession. The Gozo Curia said the pilgrimage is being held following the concerns of many farmers who were seeing their fields parched owing to a shortage of rain”.

The article did not go unnoticed. It was circulated far and wide on social media. What followed were a barrage of comments, largely ridiculing this initiative. Amongst these was the following picture circulated on Facebook:

Notwithstanding the discursive use of images like these and the historical weight they carry, not least in exoticising and perpetually reconstructing the ‘other’ in global North imaginaries, I must admit I initially found it funny. The comments, at least some, were entertaining, suggesting the bishop make use of rain sticks during the pilgrimage. Leaving stereotypes, misinformation and colonizing discourse aside, I feel that this incident and the ensuing reactions open a space for reflection on the subtext of this discussion, which, I feel has a (not so) subtle yet insidious and perhaps classist dimension to it.

While there is a scientific explanation to what is happening, that is climate change (and we have been warned about that for a very long time- echoes of the biblical Noah?), it is interesting to look at the reactions towards the Bishop of Gozo and his response to the farmers’ plea for whom the loss or damage to their livelihoods caused by the lack of rain is very real. Farmers invest time and money, and are dependent on rain in this dry island to make sure they have enough yield to at least break even. But the realities of the few remaining farms have, and continue to be (re)cast as distant realities, not only geographically (bizarrely on the few kilometres that separate us) but also ontologically.

What is troubling is that instead of showing concern towards our rural communities, grossly neglected by previous and present administrations, the mocking of the bishop’s initiative, whether one is a believer or not, is not limited to ridiculing the ritual itself. It is also a mocking of the farmers’ own plight, their expression of faith and how they want to exercise it. Whether the prayers can realistically make it rain are not the issue here. The real concern is how farmers are persistently (re)framed in our imaginaries and how they are persistently positioned within a fixed space, often unknown to the majority, of marginality and even simplicity or ignorance by the middle class intelligentsia. Farmers in Malta are regularly looked down upon, those who are uneducated, lack knowledge, those who do not know, as it seems even what they should or should not believe in and how they should articulate it. Their expression of faith and their demands are reframed and firmly repositioned within this discourse of lack, and hence something to make fun of and ridicule. And one would perhaps not be extreme in describing this as classism that has deep historical roots in our society.

It is interesting, though, that if this had to happen somewhere else, for example in some Latin American, African or Asian country while travelling, many of those commenting, including academics would have been enthralled by such practices- possibly exoticised and othered, though not demonized or ridiculed. But elements of Maltese society have always had a way of turning critically inward, embarrassed by our own while openly exalting certain ‘outside’ practices, at least some of them. But when this happens in our own country, many are desperate to insist there is no place for that which is faith-based, spiritual. Maybe this is because there is a lot of unresolved resentment towards the Roman Catholic Church in Malta, and maybe it is time to talk directly about that, as opposed to taking it out on those, who, out of sheer despair, or simply because they believe, seek to resolve to such means.

Interestingly, the Muslim community has joined in and will also be praying for rain. Of course, there are other questions which this pilgrimage should raise such as, how are we (as a country) preparing to adapt to climate change, the consequences of which, we too are now facing? Are we resilient enough to be able to cope? Is our country and government taking the necessary measures to protect our rural communities, also to preserve and conserve local heritage? Or is it ok for our rural communities and traditions to die out? We can always import food from Sicily and the south of Italy anyway, as we already do. But surely, staving off our own traditions and failure to protect the livelihoods of those who work the land is not the route we want to take.

Ridicule aside, though, some criticism did raise interesting points such as inviting rural communities to get better organized and lobby Government ‘rather than waste time praying’. I personally hope that the pilgrimage goes well and may people find the space to express their faith and hope. I also hope that this can mobilize people to look at food security and sovereignty issues within our local context seriously and address the political dimensions. These include the use of land and how it is often traded cheaply to the god of real estate, rather than exploring innovative green ways to generate income and revive communities. Church leaders like others have a role to play in discourse and debate and may this pilgrimage also inspire some justice work in this direction. Maybe a Church Commission about Food Justice? But even before that, do we need to seriously reflect critically on our constructions of farming and rurality and the class concerns in which they are wrapped?

Conversion Therapy and Other Queer Church Conversations

Prayers for rain and the classist discourse in the drops

Quick Links

Contact

Quick Links

Contact

Connect