Content uploaded by Daniel J Goodey
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Daniel J Goodey on Sep 22, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
A Capabilities Approach Analysis of Evangelii Gaudium and its
Significance for Catholic Learning Environments on LGBT+
Issues
Abstract
This article examines the 2013 apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium by Pope Francis in
terms of its significance for addressing LGBT+ issues in Catholic learning environments.
Using the 10 capabilities necessary for human flourishing as outlined by Martha Nussbaum in
her capability approach to civil society and questions of social justice, I argue that the
implications of Evangelii Gaudium for Catholic learning environments is significant and
provides necessary guidance for addressing LGBT+ social justice issues where these issues
have often been ignored or insufficiently addressed. In Evangelii Gaudium Pope Francis is
challenging the global community of Catholics to consider what kind of society the Church is
producing, and I argue that a capabilities approach provides a fruitful way in which to consider
and respond to this challenge. Although written with Catholicism in mind, the challenges
presented by Pope Francis are pertinent for consideration by other faith communities and
educators more generally.
A call for renewed and expansive hope
In 2013, Pope Francis issued an apostolic exhortation exploring central dogmas of Catholic
social teaching and their significance for evangelization entitled Evangelii Gaudium (Francis,
2013). The aim of this exhortation is to critically examine the mindset and practices of the
Catholic church, and to challenge these through juxtapositions of contemporary social
conditions and evolution of values; “while pointing out new paths for the Church’s journey in
years to come” (Francis, 2013, 5 [1]). In this way, Pope Francis is calling for everyone, but
most crucially for those responsible for Catholic social teaching – itself an approach to
2
evangelization – to consider what is most central to the Church’s mission: bringing people into
direct communion with God. This relationship with God is seen as the key to achieving our full
potential and thriving in our humanity. “We become fully human when we become more than
human, when we let God bring us beyond ourselves in order to attain the fullest truth of our
being” (Francis, 2013, 10 [8]).
This idea of “attaining the fullest truth of our being” is reminiscent of what Aristotle
meant by eudaimonia - human flourishing - when he says that “by the excellence of man I
mean excellence not of body, but of soul; for happiness we take to be an activity of the soul”
(Aristotle, 1994, 65). As Michael Sandel points out, for Aristotle “happiness is not a state of
mind but a way of being” (Sandel, 2010, 197). And in some ways this connection is significant
because what Pope Francis is doing is calling for people to look beyond strict rules and look to
what it means to be human, in all its complexities and varieties of ways of being. Similarly,
Aristotle sees the virtuous person as the one who seeks eudaimonia by being attentive to the
circumstances in which one finds oneself and not by simply relying on preexisting moral laws
(Sandel 2010, 198). Subsequently, it is this common search for human flourishing beyond what
strict adherence to established moral laws can achieve that a capabilities approach analysis of
Evangelii Gaudium may prove illuminating.
Alison Jaggar points out that “capabilities are proposed as a universal standard for
measuring people’s quality of life, which is to be assessed by how well a given society enables
them to develop and realize their distinctively human capabilities” (Jaggar, 2000, 366).
Although the capabilities approach is concerned specifically with civil society and how well it
provides opportunities for human flourishing, in this paper I hope to show how this form of
measurement can be meaningfully employed in considering issues of social justice - and
teaching these - within the particular society of the Catholic Church.
3
Generally speaking, a society is an association of individuals united around common
goals, interests, and principles (Concise Oxford, 1995, 1320). Immanuel Kant explains that a
civil society uses the weight of law to establish rights and equality among all members. (Kant,
1991, 125 [46:314]) And this is Martha Nussbaum’s objective: to use the capabilities approach
to measure the quality of life that civil society provides (Nussbaum 2007; 2013). However,
Kant points out that in addition to civil society, which is based on ideas of distributive justice,
we also form societies that are “compatible with laws” but are based on moral principles (Kant,
1991, 121 [41:306]). And so what I am seeking to do here is to extend the capabilities approach
from solely measuring legal issues of civil society to also measuring what could be referred to
as moral issues of the Catholic Church. More specifically, the reason I am focusing on
Evangelii Gaudium is to show how Pope Francis is using it to challenge the global community
of Catholics to consider what kind of society the Church is producing.
Francis cautions that “an imbalance results” when we focus more on strict adherence to
laws and disregard principles such as justice (Francis, 2013, 32 [38]). Kant states that “the civil
union cannot itself be called society, for between the commander and the subject there is no
partnership. They are not fellow-members: One is subordinated to, not coordinated with the
other; and those who are coordinate with one another must for this reason consider themselves
equals since they are subject to common laws. The civil union is not so much a society but
rather makes one” (Kant, 1991, 121 [41:307]). Hence, what Francis is doing in Evangelii
Gaudium is calling for the Church to step back and examine the foundations of the union rather
than continually insisting on the society which has been developed. In other words, “the Church
... needs to grow in her interpretation of the revealed word and in her understanding of truth”
(Francis, 2013, 33 [40]). Thus, the dogma and catechism of the Catholic Church, which
establish the “civil union”, so to speak, must recognize the insights and lived experience of the
members who comprise Catholic society. The significance of Francis’ call is a recognition for
4
how dogma and the catechism affect the members of the faith community and how well it
promotes human flourishing and flourishing within the Church.
As stated, the challenge of Francis is directed at the entire community of believers, yet
he goes on to say that “it is undeniable that many people feel disillusioned and no longer
identify with the Catholic tradition” (Francis, 2013, 55 [70]). And, in particular, Francis points
out that “our efforts in the field of education do not produce the results expected”, due to a
failure to recognize “the impact of social changes” and young people subsequently not finding
socially just answers to their problems (Francis, 2013, 78 [105]). Francis says that “young
people call us to renewed and expansive hope, for they represent new directions for humanity
and open us up to the future, lest we cling to a nostalgia for structures and customs which are
no longer life-giving in today’s world” (Francis, 2013, 80 [108]). Therefore, although Evangelii
Gaudium is important for all educators of the Catholic faith community, adults as well as young
people, the pedagogical approach is often quite different.
For adult education, educators are expected to take a more collaborative and collegial
approach between teacher and learner along a journey of faith (CAEC 1983, 56; Elias, 1989;
Findsen, 2012), whereas for young people it is seen as a journey of faith along which they are
led and that will enable them to develop the capabilities to fully engage and participate in the
faith community (Scottish Government, 2015, 2). Although there are differences in approach,
the stated objective remains the same: to develop individual capabilities to allow each member
of the faith community to fully engage on their own journey of faith, realizing their potential
to be actively discerning, full participants in examining and living the Word of God. In what
follows, I will examine the significance of Evangelii Gaudium for teaching on LGBT+ issues
and guiding people along their faith journey, while using the capabilities approach as detailed
in Martha Nussbaum’s Frontiers of Justice (2007) as a foil for critically examining how well
the objective of developing individual capabilities is achieved (as outlined above).
5
A call for critical examination
In Evangelii Gaudium, Francis is calling for a critical examination of the Church, its teachings
and practices, and the ways in which people are viewed and treated in their humanity. In
quoting Pope Paul VI (1964), he says that “‘The Church must look with penetrating eyes within
herself, ponder the mystery of her own being’” (Francis, 2013, 23 [26]). And Francis goes on
to encourage people to examine new and dynamic ways of approaching not only how Church
teaching is being conducted, but also the very focus of what is being taught (Francis, 2013, 29-
30 [33-34]). The problem he is identifying is that often secondary issues become the focus and
the main issue is lost. The point he is making is that simply adhering to rules of behavior may
allow one to function but to truly flourish – to realize what it means to be fully human – requires
opportunities for the exercise of freedom within the capabilities of what it means to be human.
Pope Francis points out, as within the Church teachings of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas
(Aquinas, 2006, I-II, q. 107, a. 4), the institution of the Church must not overly “burden” the
faithful with rules that inhibit human flourishing (Francis, 2013, 36 [43]). Therefore, by
examining this exhortation through the lens of Nussbaum’s Capability Approach, I hope to
raise some fundamental questions of justice for the Church to consider in how and what it
asserts in its social teaching.
The Catholic Church’s teaching on LGBT+ issues is based on the fundamental
understanding that any deviance from a monogamous heterosexual relationship is “disordered”
and does “not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity” (CC, 1994, 566
[2357]; for a complete development of this position see CC, 1994, 560-570 [2331-2372]).
Although the Church’s position is that many people are born with an LGBT+ sense of identity
and, therefore, “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity” (CC, 1994, 566
[2358]), they are nevertheless called to a life of chastity (CC, 1994, 566 [2359]). And this is
exactly where Nussbaum’s Capability Approach raises incisive questions for considering the
6
issue of justice for LGBT+ people within Catholic social doctrine, and one area that Evangelii
Gaudium opens a dialogue for re-examining this position. This is why the Archbishop of
Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, subsequent to the Irish referendum approving gay marriage, declared
that a social revolution was taking place and said that “it’s clear that if the referendum is an
affirmation of the views of young people the Church has a huge task in front of it. ... We have
to stop and have a reality check, not move into denial of the realities. We won’t begin again
with a sense of renewal with a sense of denial.” (IE, 2015) And this is the exact point that
Francis is making (and associating with Pope Paul VI) when he says that “renewal does not
only concern individuals but the entire Church” (Francis, 2013, 23 [26]). Further, Francis
defines this renewal as “the struggle to correct those flaws introduced by her members”
(Francis, 2013, 23 [26]). He states that “young people call us to renewed and expansive hope,
for they represent new directions for humanity and open us up to the future, lest we cling to a
nostalgia for structures and customs which are no longer life-giving in today’s world” (Francis,
2013, 80 [108]).
In Frontiers of Justice, Nussbaum identifies ten human capabilities that she sees as
minimum core social entitlements for a just society. She acknowledges that these are not
exhaustive and do not address issues of equality that may arise above the minimum threshold.
As previously stated, although Nussbaum’s approach is a political one, I see it as a meaningful
tool for accepting Francis’ call to re-examine the Church’s social teaching and challenge
particular areas where it is dramatically at odds with the moral values of society in general. In
fact, Francis openly recognizes that “this is in fact a grave responsibility, since certain realities,
unless effectively dealt with, are capable of setting off processes of dehumanization which
would then be hard to reverse” (Francis, 2013, 41 [51]). The ten capabilities that Nussbaum
identifies are: life; bodily health; bodily integrity; senses, imagination, and thought; emotions;
practical reason; affiliation; other species; play; and control over one’s environment
7
(Nussbaum, 2007, 76-78). (Note that the ten capabilities are “open-ended” and overlapping in
many ways; hence some will be grouped together as an organic approach to identified
considerations.)
Nussbaum says that using the capabilities as a guide, it is a process of “imagining a
form of life” and assessing how well an individual in their particular circumstances can flourish
and live a life of human dignity (Nussbaum, 2007, 78). Therefore, using these capabilities as a
guide, I will now examine how well the Church’s teaching on LGBT+ issues satisfies
Nussbaum’s understanding of social justice and look to how Evangelii Gaudium opens a call
for a re-examination, reconsideration, and renewal of these teachings. I will also note the
significance of this call for Catholic educators and key considerations for ensuring schools
provide a truly nurturing environment cognizant of human dignity and mindful of the
underlying moral values of the Gospel for today’s life.
The importance of what is not taught
With regards to life, there is no question regarding the Church’s position on the importance and
sanctity of life. The Church’s position is in full agreement with Nussbaum’s position of the
individual’s right to life, from birth to natural end; yet it would contest the conditional that
Nussbaum includes defending such life until it is “so reduced as to be not worth living”. (This
would include questions on abortion, euthanasia, and other related areas of moral questioning.)
Evangelii Gaudium does speak to the importance of protecting the vulnerable (Francis 2013,
147-151 [209-216]), but with regards to LGBT+ what would this mean for those who feel so
alienated from their society - in this case the Church community – that they feel there is no
hope in living a complete and fulfilled life? What of those who consider suicide as a result of
feeling unaccepted for who they are and suffer injustice in terms of a denial of their core
identity (Lee, 2000)?
8
In terms of education, Tonya Callaghan makes the point that “what is actively not taught
is just as important and revealing about a culture as what is overtly taught” (Callaghan, 2009,
4). And this is key, if the Church is to truly show concern for the vulnerable and reach out to
those who feel excluded. Francis points out that “exclusion ultimately has to do with what it
means to be a part of the society in which we live; those excluded are no longer society’s
underside or its fringes or disenfranchised - they are no longer even a part of it” (Francis 2013,
43 [53]). What Callaghan shows is that teachers in Catholic learning environments often self-
censor with regards to even mentioning LGBT+ issues because of the perceived conflict
between Church doctrine and the values of broader society. This leads to learners interested in
justice agitating for change (Callaghan, 2009, 5). In Scottish Catholic education, for example,
the guidelines offered by the Church are so broad and inclusive that no clear position is stated,
other than to ensure that issues of sexuality are discussed respectfully and openly with regards
to the various sexual orientations (Scottish Catholic Education Service, 2015). Yet such overly
broad policy positions have been found to only institutionalize the problem (Stratham, 2012,
4-16). In essence, such broad positions exclude by not clearly and specifically discussing the
conflict between established Church dogma – itself a historical interpretation of the revealed
Word – and the lived realities of being LGBT+ in a society whose insight and understanding
of those realities has grown and developed.
Francis clearly states that “the joy of the Gospel is for all people: no one can be
excluded” (Francis, 2013, 21 [23]). Therefore, Evangelii Gaudium offers an opportunity for
educators to more fully consider the impact of not only what is being taught, but also what is
not being taught. As Francis says, “... all religious teaching ultimately has to be reflected in the
teacher’s way of life …” (Francis, 2013, 35 [42]). The significance of what Francis is saying
is that if the full scope of LGBT+ issues are ignored, then those who identify as LGBT+ will
be excluded. The effect of an educational institution or an individual teacher failing to explicitly
9
discuss, teach and guide on such issues establishes an atmosphere and perception that such
things are inappropriate or unacceptable. Of course, individual teachers who seek to openly
discuss and acknowledge LGBT+ issues within an institution that itself engages in self-
censorship or is constrained by conservative episcopal dogmatism risks their position within
the institution. Yet, it is for this very reason that Francis acknowledges, along with Paul VI,
that “renewal does not concern only individuals but the entire Church” (Francis, 2013, 23 [26]).
Bodily health is one key capability that Nussbaum identifies as important in ensuring
human flourishing. Although people who identify as LGBT+ will obviously experience the
same health issues as those who identify as heterosexual, there are important factors that do
create additional concerns for those who are LGBT+. Although many mental health issues may
arise because of not aligning oneself in conformity within a heteronormative society (Jackson,
2006), the concern here is the impact these may have on one’s bodily health, e.g., impact of
eating disorders, substance misuse and depression. This could also include the capability of
play. Many LGBT+ learners can feel excluded from organized sports because of the pressures
of an institutionalized disposition towards heteronormativity (Maher and Sever, 2008, 90).
Additionally, misperceptions and failures on the part of health education may lead to failures
to appropriately assess risks regarding sexual health, e.g., cervical cancer, STDs, anal cancer,
HIV, and others (Lee, 2000).
If a Catholic learning environment fails to adequately address bodily health issues
because it refuses to recognize and address LGBT+ issues appropriately, then peoples’
opportunities to maintain bodily health are diminished and they are vulnerable. (It should be
noted that even in nondenominational learning environments, however, there is also an absence
of recognition of these particular concerns (Lowden and Powney, 1996).) Yet Francis reminds
us that Christians “are called to care for the vulnerable” (Francis, 2013, 147 [209]), and to
“overcome paralyzing mistrust, integrate those who are different and make this very integration
10
a new factor of development” (Francis, 2013, 148 [210])! Hence, Francis’ message does seem
to reinforce the position of the capabilities approach and affirm the responsibility of Catholic
learning environments to ensure human flourishing by providing competent and detailed health
education regardless of heteronormative biases.
Nussbaum’s capability approach also calls for the bodily integrity of all people to be
respected and protected. Given the high proportion of violent assaults experienced by people
who identify as LGBT+, this is a very important area for consideration. One of the big concerns
for parents of LGBT+ children or who are themselves LGBT+ is to ensure that their children’s
school is a safe and nurturing environment (Bayly, 2007; Robinson, 2010; Taylor and Peter,
2011). When the core ethos of a learning environment is perceived to disregard – or even
proactively suppress – LGBT+ identities, then negative responses toward people who have
those identities are reproduced. Studies show that even learning environments who are silent
on LGBT+ issues result in negative atmospheres for those who identify as such (Robinson
2010, 337-338). It is through disregard and silence that problems become institutionalized.
The Church’s position is clear that “life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted
to us by God” (CC, 1994, 551 [2288]). In fact, the position goes so far as to say that we have a
duty to take into account the needs of others that will allow them to flourish. Francis points out
that “the Church is called to be at the service of a difficult dialogue” that confronts violence
and defends those who are marginalized (Francis, 2013, 57 [74]). One study found that around
a third of LGBT+ students in faith schools in the UK reported that their school ignored
instances of homophobic bullying (Stratham, 2012). Therefore, it is a fundamental
responsibility of Catholic learning environments to ensure that LGBT+ issues are openly
discussed with respect and genuine concern.
The Catholic Church declares that “everyone … should acknowledge and accept his
sexual identity” (CC, 1994, 560 [2333]). Yet this is exactly where there is confusion for many.
11
If one is to truly embrace their sexual identity, then how does one reconcile this with the
position that one is to respond differently when the identity is LGBT+ (CC, 1994, 566-567
[2359-2360])? This difficulty is what educators in Catholic learning environments must
address and work through. Nussbaum argues that each person must be able to use their senses,
imagination and thoughts in ways which are “truly human … informed and cultivated by an
adequate education” (Nussbaum, 2007, 76). And, in fact, this position is not really different
from that of the Church, since it insists that “social justice can be obtained only in respecting
the transcendental dignity of man. The person represents the ultimate end of society …” (CC,
1994, 468 [1929]). Kant refers to such a duty as a categorical imperative, whereby we should
“act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person
of another, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end” (Kant, 1993, 91
[429]). “This same duty”, the Church goes on to say, “extends to those who think or act
differently from us” (CC, 1994, 469 [1933]). Here, for Nussbaum as well as Kant, one could
include concern for other species and the capability to live in concern for all life; and the
question naturally follows that if we respect other species in the nature of their orientation why
we would not respect those within our own species to the same extent.
Francis states that “the Church … needs to grow in her interpretation of the revealed
word and in her understanding of truth” (Francis, 2013, 33 [40]). This understanding of truth,
he argues, must be expressed in modern terms and frames of reference (Francis, 2013, 34 [41]).
Francis highlights the tension between ideas and realities and argues there is a danger in letting
ideas become detached from reality. Realities, he says, take precedence and we must not allow
ideas of moral judgements to ignore the more fundamental principles of human dignity and
social justice (Francis, 2013, 157 [231]).
Complementarily though, Nussbaum argues that focusing on the realities alone equally
results in an imbalance and emphasizes “the importance of the narrative imagination which is
12
the ability to think what it might be like to be in the shoes of a person different from oneself,
to be an intelligent reader of that person’s story, and to understand the emotions and wishes
and desires that someone so placed might have” (Nussbaum, 2006, 6-7). This view is similar
to that of the Church, which states that “the passions are natural components of the human
psyche; they form the passageway and ensure the connection between the life of the senses and
the life of the mind” (CC, 1994, 436 [1764]).
The challenge therefore is to discern these new referents while at the same time
clarifying what these mean in terms of Catholic understanding. As Francis says, “in a culture
which privileges dialogue as a form of encounter, it is time to devise a means for building
consensus and agreement while seeking the goal of a just, responsive and inclusive society”
(Francis, 2013, 161-162 [239]). Hence, both Nussbaum and Francis agree that freedom of
expression and freedom of belief are crucial to being “truly human”.
Francis identifies the problems of thought as lying “not with reason itself, but with the
promotion of a particular ideology which blocks the path to authentic, serene and productive
dialogue” (Francis, 2013, 164 [243]). And this is the point Nussbaum makes with regards to
realizing human capabilities, “that to do this involves affirmative material and institutional
support, not simply a failure to impede” (Nussbaum, 2007, 287). For Nussbaum, this also
includes the capability for practical reason and to control one’s own environment. And Francis
would agree, the engagement and critical reflection of one’s own life, and to be politically and
materially involved, is what makes one fully human.
A lack of open dialogue within learning environments on LGBT+ issues engenders a
negative environment and inhibits freedom of expression. Studies show that Catholic learning
environments can improve opportunities for human flourishing by engaging with charities and
other organizations “to explore the effects of homophobic attitudes on young LG[BT+] people
and to look at interpretations of religious texts” (Robinson, 2010, 347). In this way, Evangelii
13
Gaudium can be read as a call to Catholic learning environments to engage with these outside
organizations to ensure the capabilities of senses, imagination and thoughts - as well as
practical reason and control over one’s environment - are realized to their full capacity by all
students and staff.
Another capability Nussbaum argues is important is the ability to fully experience and
express emotions. However, many LGBT+ learners in Catholic learning environments feel they
are unable to openly form loving and caring attachments to those whom they feel they are
naturally drawn. As Elaine Hutton puts it, in citing Fr. Sebastian Moore (OSB), “relationship
is so integral to understanding human identity that, ‘a person is a walking relationship’”
(Hutton, 2012, 757). Thus, this area also includes the capability to engage in various
meaningful forms of affiliation founded on mutual levels of respect and dignity.
Catholic learning environments generally see themselves as open to LGBT+ learners
by making the distinction of embracing the person (regardless of their orientation) but not the
action towards which a “disordered” orientation would lead one (Maher and Sever, 2008, 100-
102). Nussbaum, however, points out that “a child does not learn its society’s conception of
love, or of anger, by sitting in an ethics class. It learns them long before any classes, in complex
interactions with parents and society. These interactions provide paradigms of emotions and
teach the cognitive categories that underlie the experience of emotion” (Nussbaum, 1988, 233).
Consequently, the cognitive categories of a society wherein LGBT+ people are identified as
“disordered” will create environments where one’s emotional development is blighted by fear
and anxiety. (The wording here is a paraphrase of Nussbaum’s definition for the capability of
emotions.)
The stories of the community, or in this case the Catholic learning environment, create
a paradigm for how we are expected to feel; in this case, heteronormative. Nussbaum points
out that “... to grasp the full story of the emotional life of an individual or group will require
14
examining the stories it tells itself and the connections among these …” (Nussbaum, 1988,
235). And it is here that Francis’ words on conversion of the Church are important. He says,
“the renewal of structures demanded by pastoral conversion can only be understood in this
light: as part of an effort to make them more mission oriented, to make ordinary pastoral
activity on every level more inclusive and open …” (Francis, 2013, 24 [27]). Nussbaum agrees
with this idea of conversion and renewal, and she argues that thus far there are no accounts of
human flourishing that are perfect, all of our social stories have their problems; but there is no
reason to think we cannot do better (Nussbaum, 1988, 235).
Francis says that “everyone needs to be touched by the comfort and attraction of God’s
saving love, which is mysteriously at work in each person, above and beyond their faults and
failings” (Francis, 2013, 37 [44]). The Church’s position is that “to love is to will the good of
another. All other affections have their source in this first movement of the human heart toward
the good” (CC, 1994, 436 [1766]). As previously mentioned, learning environments with
ineffective LGBT+ policies have been shown to result in experiences of psychological
difficulties including feelings of “confusion, lack of energy and motivation, depression, and
feeling hurt and unable to be themselves” (Robinson, 2010, 339). Therefore, Catholic learning
environments must look for renewal and conversion by ensuring that effective LGBT+ policies
are in place and attention is given to “supporting forms of human association that enable strong
emotional development” (Nussbaum, 2007, 76).
A church without frontiers
It is important to guard against understandings of justice which favor either a purely subjectivist
or objectivist point of view, as both extremes lose sight of the interconnectedness and reliance
shared between the individual and society (Whiteside, 1988, 291). The individual finds
grounding and place in society, and society realizes itself in the experiences and instantiation
15
of individuals. The society engendered by Catholic learning communities must remain
cognizant of all of its members, openly recognize their experiences, and ensure justice. What
the capabilities approach can do is call to account the practices and policies of Catholic learning
environments. What Evangelii Gaudium does is call Catholics - and Catholic leaders in
particular - to examine how they engage with others and to return to the core message of the
Catholic Church, which is to share the love of God in thought and action. Can discrimination
– active or passive – based on sexual orientation be seen as any different from discrimination
based on other factors, such as ethnic origin (Wintemute, 2002, 137)?
The Church accepts that our sexual identities are given by nature just as are our ethnic
origins. In Evangelii Gaudium Francis wants to highlight how “the proclamation of the Gospel
will be a basis for restoring the dignity of human life” (Francis, 2013, 58 [75]). Francis states
that individually and collectively Christians “are called to care for the vulnerable” and to
prioritize efforts to ensure they “find opportunities in life” (Francis, 2013, 147 [209]). This is
what Nussbaum means when she says that “insofar as a highly general idea of human
flourishing and its possibilities does figure in the approach, it is not a single idea of flourishing,
as in Aristotle’s own normative theory, but rather an idea of a space for diverse possibilities of
flourishing” (Nussbaum, 2007, 182). And, Nussbaum is cognizant that the different stories we
tell and the different approaches we take will create different understandings of how one truly
flourishes in being human.
Nussbaum is quick to say that although members of a religious community would be
expected to accept the importance and necessity that individuals have the right to the ten
capabilities, such acceptance should in no way imply that they must also accept that any and
all choices made are morally good. In other words, accepting that every member of society
should be able to choose does not mean that we necessarily choose well. What is of importance
for human dignity and the opportunity to flourish is the opportunity to choose (Nussbaum,
16
2007, 183-186). “We have said that this story is a structure of feeling. But we could equally
say that these forms of feeling act themselves out in forms of life, as the characters play out
with doomed repetitiveness the paradigm scenarios their culture and its stories have taught
them. The central drama ... is the plot of the hunt for the guilty one, who is at the same time
oneself. For the human being internalizes, as we said, the role of judge and punisher, even as
he is aware that his own desires are the object of the punishment” (Nussbaum, 1988, 240).
What Francis does in Evangelii Gaudium is make clear that the Church is “a Church without
frontiers” (Francis, 2013, 147 [210]). And, I would argue, it must not become one that is limited
and proscribed by the frontiers of justice.
Of course, the concerns of adequately addressing LGBT+ issues in education is not a
problem unique to Catholic education or denominational schools more generally, but Evangelii
Gaudium makes clear the Christian duty to care for the vulnerable and defend the marginalized.
The understanding of the Gospel and the truth it reveals must be interpreted within modern
frames of reference to address issues which effectively marginalize and alienate significant
portions of society and lead to considerable loss of human dignity and social justice. Religious
educators must discern new referents within a modern Catholic understanding of mission which
is both responsive and inclusive of all people. If educators are to take their vocation seriously,
they must lead the way by ensuring LGBT+ members of their learning communities are valued
and respected. As has been noted, Pope Francis’ call for conversion of the Church is aimed at
every level of the pastoral community and educators have a moral duty to establish inclusive
institutions where the fulness of human flourishing is open to all.
References
Aquinas, T. 2006. Summa Theologica, part I-II (pars prima secundae), The Project
Gutenberg eBook, translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province.
17
Aristotle. 1994. The Nicomachean Ethics. In Ethics: Selections from Classical and
Contemporary Writers, edited by Oliver Johnson, 7th ed. London: Harcourt Brace
Publishers.
Bayly, M. 2007. Creating Safe Environments for LGBT Students: A Catholic Schools
Perspective. New York: Harrington Park Press.
Beattie, T. 2014. “Whose Rights, Which Rights? - The United Nations, The Vatican, Gender
and Sexual and Reproductive Rights.” The Heythrop Journal, 55(6):1080-1090.
Callaghan, T. 2009. “The Policy Polka and The Curriculum Cotillion: How Catholic Schools
Dance Away from Their Obligations Regarding Sexual Diversity.” Canadian Journal
for New Scholars in Education, 2(1):1-9.
Catholic Adult Education Centre (CAEC). 1983. Towards Adult Faith: Adult Education in
Faith in The Catholic Church in Australia Today. Victoria.
Catholic Church (CC). 1994. Catechism of The Catholic Church. Vatican: Libreria Editrice.
(Note that numbers in square brackets immediately following the page number cited
refer to the original paragraph numbers of the catechism.)
Concise Oxford Dictionary. 1995. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elias, J. 1989. “Adult Religious Education: An Analysis of Roman Catholic Documents
Published in Australia, Canada, England and Wales, and The United States.”
Religious Education: The Official Journal of the Religious Education Association,
84(1):90-102.
Elias, J. 2012. “Religious Education.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education,
133:5-12.
Findsen, B. 2012. “Religious institutions as sites of learning for older adults.” New directions
for adult and continuing education, 133:71-82.
18
Francis, Pope. 2013. The joy of the gospel: apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium of the
Holy Father Francis to the bishops, clergy, consecrated persons, and the lay faithful
on the proclamation of the gospel in today’s world, New York, Random House. (Note
that numbers in square brackets immediately following the page number cited refer to
the original paragraph numbers of the exhortation.)
Hedge, N. and MacKenzie, A. 2012. “Putting Nussbaum’s capability approach to work: re-
visiting inclusion.” Cambridge Journal of Education, 42(3):27-344.
Hutton, E. 2012. “Sexual ethics with reference to the work of Sebastian Moore OSB and
Timothy Radcliffe OP: a critical analysis.” The Heythrop Journal, 53(5):755-762.
Irish Examiner (IE). 2015. “Archbishop Martin: Church Needs Reality Check”, in the `Irish
Examiner, 23 May 2015,
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/archbishop-martin-church-
needs-reality-check-678476.html (last accessed 10/07/15).
Isaac, E. P. 2012. “Expanding the boundaries of adult religious education.” New Directions
for Adult and Continuing Education, 133:83-87.
Jaggar, A. 2000. “Feminist ethics.” In The Blackwell guide to ethical theory, 348-374.
Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Jackson, S. 2006. “Gender, sexuality and heterosexuality: the complexity (and limits) of
heteronormativity.” Feminist Theory, 7(1):105-121.
Kant, I. 1991. The metaphysics of morals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Note
that numbers in square brackets immediately following the page number cited refer to
the section numbers of the original work.)
Kant, I. 1993. The moral law: groundwork of the metaphysics of morals. London: Routledge.
(Note that numbers in square brackets immediately following the page number cited
19
refer to the section numbers of the original work as published by the Royal Prussian
Academy in Berlin.)
Lee R. 2000. “Health care problems of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender patients”,
Western Journal of Medicine, 172(6):403-408.
Maher, M. J., & Sever, L. M. (2007). “What educators in Catholic schools might expect when
addressing gay and lesbian issues: A study of needs and barriers.” Journal of Gay &
Lesbian Issues in Education, 4(3), 79-111.
Moore, S. 2007. The contagion of Jesus: doing theology as if it mattered. London: Darton,
Longman and Todd. (Cited in Hutton 2012.)
Nussbaum, M. 1988. “Narrative emotions: Beckett’s genealogy of love.” Ethics, 98:2, 225-
254.
Nussbaum, M. 2006. “Education for democratic citizenship.” Lecture. The Hague: Institute of
Social Studies.
Nussbaum, M. 2007. Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership,
London: Belknap Press.
Nussbaum, M. 2013. Creating capabilities: the human development approach. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Paul VI. 1964. Encyclical Letter. Ecclesiam Suam, 9, 10, 11(AAS56):611-612.
Rich, A. 1980. “Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence.” Signs, 5:4, 631-660.
Robinson, K. 2010. “A study of young lesbian and gay people’s school experiences.”
Educational Psychology in Practice: Theory, Research and Practice in Educational
Psychology, 26(4):331-351.
Sandel, M. 2010. Justice: what’s the right thing to do?. London: Penguin Books.
Scottish Catholic Education Service. 2015. “Conduct of relationships, sexual health and
parenthood education in schools statutory guidance published by the Scottish
20
government: advice for Catholic schools.”
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2014/12/8526/1 (last accessed 01/06/15).
Lowden, K. and Powney, J. 1996. An evolving sexual health education programme: from
health workers to teachers. Scottish Council for Research in Education Research
Report No. 80.
Scottish Government. 2013. Scottish government equality outcomes: lesbian, gay, bisexual
and transgender (LGBT): evidence review. Communities Analytical Services: Social
Research, www.scotland.gov.uk/socialresearch (last accessed 01/06/15).
Scottish Government. 2015. Curriculum for excellence: religious education in Roman
Catholic schools: principles and practice.
www.curriculumforexcellencescotland.gov.uk/rerc_principles_practice_tcm4-540177.
Statham, H. 2012. The school report: the experiences of gay young people in Britain’s
schools in 2012. Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge.
http://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/school_report_2012(2).pdf (last accessed
09/07/15).
Taylor, C. and Peter, T. 2011. “‘We are not aliens, we’re people, and we have rights’:
Canadian human rights discourse and high school climate for LGBTQ students.”
Canadian Review of Sociology, 48(3):275-312.
Van Tongeren, P. 2013. “Natural law, human dignity and Catholic social teaching.” Religion,
State and Society, 41(2):152-163.
Whiteside, K. 1988. Merleau-Ponty and the Foundation of an Existential Politics. New
Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Wintemute, R. 2002. “Religion vs. sexual orientation - a clash of human rights.” Journal of
Law and Equality, 1(2):125-154.
