By: Editor (LGBTIQ)
July 26, Colombo (LNW): In a surprising turn of events, tensions have surfaced between Pope Francis and Sri Lanka’s Archbishop Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith over the issue of same-sex relationships.
This rift highlights the stark differences within the Catholic Church’s leadership on this sensitive matter.
Pope Francis has been known for his more inclusive approach towards the LGBTQIA+ community. He has consistently emphasised compassion and acceptance, famously stating, “Who am I to judge?” regarding homosexual individuals.
The Pope’s papacy has seen a shift towards understanding and integrating queer people into the Church, advocating for their rights and dignity whilst maintaining traditional Catholic doctrine on marriage.
In a recent statement, the Pope reiterated his position, calling for the Church to welcome and accompany all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He emphasised the importance of pastoral care and the need to avoid unjust discrimination against the LGBTQIA+ community.
“Persons with homosexual tendencies are children of God. God loves them. Condemning a person like this is a sin. Criminalising people with homosexual tendencies is an injustice,” the Pope said, making his point that laws criminalising queer individuals would be unjust.
Contrasting sharply with the Pope’s stance, Archbishop of Colombo Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith has voiced strong criticism against legislative moves in Sri Lanka that aim to support ‘same-sex marriages’. At a media briefing, Cardinal Ranjith condemned the government’s legislative priorities, accusing them of undermining traditional family values.
“The bill presented by MP Premnath Dolawatta, as well as the government’s proposed bill on women’s rights, both uncover an effort to create a very dangerous situation in Sri Lanka,” Cardinal Ranjith asserted.
“As Catholics, we believe marriages should take place between a man and a woman. Marriage cannot take place between two men or two women.“
Cardinal Ranjith argued that the family is the foundation of society and that legalising same-sex marriage would lead to societal destruction. Whilst acknowledging the need to protect the rights of individuals born with same-sex tendencies, he firmly opposed legalising same-sex marriages, stating, “Incorporating this into law and making it a choice free for any individual to pursue is wrong as we believe.“
However, it should be explicitly mentioned that neither the former bill nor the latter proposes ‘same-sex marriage,’ as the Supreme Court made it clear that Dolawatta’s bill proposing the decriminalisation of consensual same-sex sexual relationships between adults by amending the 365/365A clauses in the Penal Code of Sri Lanka stands in compliance with the Constitution of Sri Lanka, and, therefore, can be passed into law by a simple majority in Parliament, and the clauses of the Women’s Rights bill paving the way for the so called ‘same-sex marriage’ ought to be ruled out owing to the island nation’s traditional values.
With the Pope categorically recognising laws criminalising LGBTQIA+ individuals to be ‘unjust’ and the views of the Archbishop of Colombo categorically defying the perception of legal reforms pertaining to the matter, the public’s divergence in opinions shall not be gone unnoticed.
The Archbishop’s stance contradicting Vatican’s views highlights the broader struggle within the Catholic Church to reconcile traditional doctrines with contemporary human rights issues, one activist told LNW.
The Archbishop’s comments have been perceived by some as a direct challenge to the Pope’s efforts to foster a more inclusive Church, he emphasised.
Furthermore, Cardinal Ranjith’s remarks about the international influence on Sri Lanka’s legislative efforts underscore the complex interplay between local cultural values and global human rights movements. No historical evidence either documented or available via oral passage to date suggest that ‘same-sex marriage’ is culturally ‘inappropriate’ in Sri Lanka.
In fact, same-sex unions were quite prevalent throughout certain areas of Sri Lanka, including Bilinwatta, Kotahena, Moratuwa, Murawatta, Dehiwala, Mount Lavinia, Kandana, Kadirana, Negombo, where the indigenous ‘Nachchi’ community once lived in harmony with the heterosexual majority, whilst sharing a domestic partnership with another male partner as ‘man and woman,’ another activist stressed.
“The term ‘Nachchi’ is originated from the Nauch Girls (dancing people for pleasure) in India. They identify themselves outside the binary gender norm of man and woman, despite being assigned male at birth and not subject to castration as the ‘Hijra’ community in India. Certain groups resided in the Ceylon during the late 18th century and have been living with their partners as ‘man and woman’ ever since. Despite the lacking documentation of the existence of such unions, they lived and continue to live in the lifestyle they prefer. So this is not exactly ‘culturally inappropriate’” she pointed out.
She further emphasised that Sri Lanka has a rich diversity of culture, only to be coerced into change in the era that gave birth to post-colonial fabric in law.
“What is culture? Culture is when you see the way of life of a people, including their attitudes, values, beliefs, arts, sciences, modes of perception, and habits of thought and activity for a considerable period of time, until you find it no longer uncommon. If such unions lived in Sri Lanka for centuries, how can it be ‘culturally inappropriate’?” another activist told LNW. “We were subjected to divergence by colonial rules imposed by the British. Sri Lanka is now an independent state and is obliged to protect its citizens. That is why we have a Constitution. We bow down to the Supreme Court ruling. But the theory of cultural inappropriateness needs further review.“
The Cardinal’s comparison of the government’s priorities to Marie Antoinette’s infamous “let them eat cake” remark during the French Revolution underscores his frustration with the government’s focus amidst the country’s economic struggles.
As the Catholic Church continues to navigate these contentious issues, the divide between Pope Francis’ inclusive vision and Cardinal Ranjith’s traditionalist stance raises critical questions about the future direction of the Church.
Will the Church be able to find common ground, or will such differences lead to further divisions?
