Power corrupts
A few days ago, in the comments on this post, Bill DeHaas mentioned the April 24 episode of the EWTN “news” program The World Over, which featured the Rev. Robert Sirico — introduced by host Raymond Arroyo as “a prominent Catholic intellectual” — discussing the ethics of torture (or, rather, “aggressive interrogation techniques”). A 24-minute clip of that conversation is now available for viewing on the Acton Institute’s Web site. The Acton Institute for the study of Religion and Liberty is Fr. Sirico’s project; its namesake is Lord Acton, who (as Mr. DeHaas reminded us) is remembered for having observed that “absolute power corrupts absolutely,” though the context of this remark — opposition to the dogma of papal infallibility — is less well remembered.
Much of Sirico’s most recent conversation with Arroyo on EWTN is embarrassing, if not downright appalling. Their discussion of the Notre Dame commencement speech controversy (”This is a little like Ahmadinejad speaking at Yeshiva University!” Arroyo cries. In fact, Sirico might have pointed out, it’s really more like President Obama speaking at Yeshiva University) includes a craven attempt to smear Georgetown for honoring Vice President Biden’s support of the Violence Against Women Act. Arroyo smirks as he introduces a clip of Biden’s speech at Georgetown, in which Biden says: “My dad would say no man has a right to raise a hand to a woman under any circumstances other than self-defense.”
Arroyo laughs incredulously. “Does that mean if she’s running at me, I can hit her with a baseball bat? What does that mean?! It’s a very odd formulation.” No, it isn’t. It’s completely rational, in fact. But Fr. Sirico doesn’t say so. Arroyo then cuts to a clip of Biden describing domestic violence as “the ultimate abuse.” Back to Arroyo, who says indignantly, “I know what the ultimate abuse is: it’s called abortion.” Sirico concurs, and says, “When you hear Vice President Biden speak, or Speaker Pelosi speak, you hear the rattlings of Catholic children who never went on in their formation to become Catholic adults.”
I will not dispute the suggestion that Biden and Pelosi would benefit from another look at the Catechism, especially on the subject of abortion. But if they are “rattling” children, what does a properly formed Catholic adult sound like? At about 7:50, Arroyo responds to Sirico’s condemnation of Biden and Pelosi:
ARROYO: Many people will then come in and say, “Wait a minute, but they’re against torture, and they’re for immigration…” These are all prudential judgments, as opposed to this abortion question…
SIRICO: Which is intrinsically…
ARROYO: …Which is always gravely evil.
SIRICO [simultaneously]: …intrinsically evil.
ARROYO: And how is it defined by the Church?
SIRICO: There’s a difference between something that is intrinsically, by its nature, evil and something that may be problematic, depending on certain circumstances, that requires prudential judgment.
If I had to guess what a well-catechized Catholic adult would have to say about the morality of torture, I would expect it to bear some resemblance to what we find in the actual Catechism, which discusses torture under the heading “Respect for Bodily Integrity” — which itself falls under Article 5, the Fifth Commandment, “You Shall Not Kill,” along with abortion.
2297 Kidnapping and hostage taking bring on a reign of terror; by means of threats they subject their victims to intolerable pressures. They are morally wrong. Terrorism threatens, wounds, and kills indiscriminately; it is gravely against justice and charity. Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity. Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.
2298 In times past, cruel practices were commonly used by legitimate governments to maintain law and order, often without protest from the Pastors of the Church, who themselves adopted in their own tribunals the prescriptions of Roman law concerning torture. Regrettable as these facts are, the Church always taught the duty of clemency and mercy. She forbade clerics to shed blood. In recent times it has become evident that these cruel practices were neither necessary for public order, nor in conformity with the legitimate rights of the human person. On the contrary, these practices led to ones even more degrading. It is necessary to work for their abolition. We must pray for the victims and their tormentors.
Given the clarity of this teaching, Sirico’s take on the morality of torture, beginning about 9 minutes into this clip, isn’t quite what you might expect. Details after the jump… I’d like to believe someone at the Acton Institute will be moved to remove the video from their website, so I’ve gone to the trouble of transcribing this part of the conversation. There are a lot of people justifying the actions of the Bush administration in dishonest and/or morally bankrupt terms right now, and most of the time I think it may be best to ignore them. But it’s different, I think, when the person in question is wearing a Roman collar, and is introduced as a “prominent Catholic intellectual” — and when what he says is aired on the Eternal Word Television Network and is ostensibly an explication of official Church teaching. In that case, I think it’s important for us to know what’s being said.
ARROYO: Let’s move on to the big story of the week, which we’ve been hearing again and again, about these enhanced interrogation techniques that came to light because of CIA memos that were released to the public, made public this week…
SIRICO: Some CIA memos.
ARROYO: Some CIA memos. Not necessarily the result of these interrogation techniques…
SIRICO [simultaneously]: …[inaudible] the whole context.
ARROYO: Exactly. What is the Church’s position on these techniques? Not all of them would be classified as torture.
SIRICO: Yeah. I think you have to make a distinction between what is called “aggressive interrogation” and torture. Torture, as I understand it, is where you have bodily harm, or you bring a person to death, or that death or permanent physical disability result.
It’s interesting that Sirico’s understanding of “torture” seems to be much more specific than the “physical or moral violence” specified in the Catechism. In fact, Sirico’s understanding seems drawn not from Church teaching, but from the August 1, 2002 Jay Bybee memo: “Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent to intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.” The discussion continues:
SIRICO: Waterboarding, which doesn’t sound like very plea– I know that I was threatened with that earlier in the evening… [laughs]
ARROYO: No, I said I wouldn’t waterboard you!
SIRICO: Well, actually I’m from Brooklyn.
The fact that I don’t understand the content of their jokes doesn’t change the fact that they are joking. About waterboarding. On EWTN.
SIRICO: Um… My understanding is that a lot of intelligence officers have been through this, if you’ve ever known anybody who’s been in the SEALs, as I have, they have been through sleep deprivation, waterboarding, and other things. So I think you have to make those distinctions. You also have to make a distinction with regard to ethics and morality, and a distinction with regard to legality and effectiveness. You know what I think would be very helpful, is if we took and adapted some principles of the just war theory and applied it to aggressive interrogation techniques. So it would be a matter of the competent authority; it would be a matter of the proportion. I would also add immediacy, because what makes it urgent to resort to real physical agression is whether there’s a ticking bomb, or there’s a kid in storage who’s going to suffocate.
What?
ARROYO: Well, this is the other question. The other thing that came to light this week is that, as a result of these interrogation techniques, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others who were masterminds in the 9/11 plot and subsequent plots, revealed there was a terrorist activity network in place in Los Angeles that was apparently broken up, and several other attacks were scuttled and cells broken up as a result. Given that result, and the grave danger to a large number of people, does that then qualify as an ethical, under some cases, type of interrogation?
SIRICO: I know that the indispensable principle is that you can never do evil that good may come from it. But the question is whether roughing up somebody, even severely, is an evil in itself, if they possess information that they have no right to possess, in effect. The Church’s default stance is always nonviolence. But that doesn’t mean that the Church is pacifistic, and that’s why we have a principle like the just-war principles, guidelines on how to engage things with proportionality, with limitation. So this is very lamentable, and I don’t think, in terms of the current debate that’s going on, that we have all of the chips on the table to make — at least, I don’t have all the chips on the table to make a kind of solid moral evaluation. There’s going to be the juridical process that’s going to have to go, and one hopes that’s going to be less political than it is juridical.
ARROYO: Mm-hmm. Agreed.
I can agree on that final point, too. It would certainly be a disgrace if political motivations were allowed to obscure strict principles of justice, legality, and ethics. At least we can rest assured that properly catechized Catholic adults won’t stand for such an outrage.
on May 1st, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Fr. Sirico would do well to read the new Editorial at America. “Sectarian Catholicism,” though I doubt he’d read it with an open mind.
on May 1st, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Bob Nunz,
I agree with you completely. Here is the link to this compelling editorial. Not trying to stir Bill Mazella here, but I kind of sympathize with Augustine on this one and I like the analogy to the Donatists and Circumcellions. Good thing the Imperial Army no longer exists.
http://www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=11636
on May 1st, 2009 at 5:40 pm
This is despicable on so many levels and for so many reasons.
on May 1st, 2009 at 7:27 pm
One of the great fears that I have is how many young priests (also seminarians) receive their
‘practical’ theology from EWTN—and ‘The World Over’. This information that they receive then, gets transmitted to the parishioners. And this poor excuse for theology, gets passed as solid Christian teaching.
on May 1st, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Alan, I understand your concern. I am buttressed by the knowledge that your expertise is in NT theology rather than Late Antiquity. But with your scruples for proper sources you must realize that we only have the writings of the opponents of the Donatists rather than original text. So America magazine uses some accepted (and probably erroneus) assumptions in making its point. Although I agree with its point I found startling its justaposition of the differences between Rome and the American bishops on this one. Benedict better watch out since the Republican party seems to have the obedience of the bishops more than he does.
Mollie does a great job in describing the confounding logic of EWTN, the station that brings us the worst of the Middle Ages while talking to people like they are in Kindergarten. “What power in the Rosary that it prevented very few casualties in the Crusaders while killing 80% of the Saracens.”
As far as Augustine is concerned it is noteworthy that he made mediocrity official in the Catholic Church, insisting that being Catholic was more important than being holy. The church of dogma over the church of the Spirit has its biggest promoter in Augustine.
But I will calm down Alan. Just noting in closing that Augustine would not agree with you that it is a good thing the imperial army no longer exists.
on May 1st, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Ms. O’Reilly – thank you very much for posting this subject and interview on EWTN. Did not know much about Sirico and was initially taken aback by some of his thought processes. So, if you go to the earlier blog – I inserted a link to a formal letter to Franc Cardinal Rode asking that Sirico be investigated by the proper Roman dicastery and removed from the priesthood. This link provides a comprehensive biography of Sirico with an easily read timeline of events in his life:
a) out of high school, was in the military less than 3 months and was discharged (reason why is confidential) – notice in Ms. O’Reilly’s comments he suggests that he has had experience with or as a Navy SEAL???
b) in his early careers – he both started and led large Gay/Lesbian Activist groups;
c) he spent part of his life as a born again evangelist;
d) he eventually did get a college degree – then, (how I am not sure given the need for documentation, etc.) he was accepted into the Paulist Seminary – he basically did 4-5 years of theology/postulancy and was ordained. But, even that education was interrputed by Sirico’s need to do some special projects;
e) he eventually hooked up with his partner to start the Acton Institute – the Paulist assigned him twice in his first year because he did not like his jobs;
f) took a leave of absence his second year of priesthood – somehow hooked up with the chancellor of a diocese – was given work that allowed him to continue to fundraise and give speeches for the Acton Institute (which, BTW, basically justifies and integrates capitalism and freedom – to an extreme point – not unlike the economic point we hit last year that cause our economic depression);
g) that chancellor later became a bishop in another diocese; brought Sirico with him, the Paulist let him go, this bishop incardinated him, and has now set up this formation house and community led by Sirico. Sirico is also pastor of a small rural parish with an associate (2 masses every weekend) which allows him to spend full time at Acton ($150,000 annual salary+);
h) all of this by a man who has barely been a priest for 12+ years now; has left his original community; taken at least one leave of absence; and goes around giving public speeches that really stretch the catholic “imagination”.
My guess is – if you could find other speeches or interviews, you would hear some other very slanted approaches to catholicism.
Sectarian Catholics – Sirico is the living embodiment of America’s article.
h)
on May 1st, 2009 at 8:31 pm
We rarely look at EWTN but one night not long ago we started watching a show and were fascinated by the oddity of it so much so that we kept tuned in. The program was claiming that there was a descendant of Louis XVII, the unfortunate son of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette who is usually thought to have died as a child, and that this man would save France and restore the monarchy as Henry V. I won’t go into the details, but the absurdity of this notion kept us watching. Would it not be useful for the bishops to warn the faithful who innocently watch this channel that it is not exactly the voice of the Church.
on May 2nd, 2009 at 3:04 am
To me the great problem with EWTN is that it is the only self identified Cathlic” channel on cabel TV. The Evangelicals and independents are all over the place, God bless them. I can’t understand the priests at Mass because my hearing is too bad, so sometime I’m desperate for a sermon, and some of the Evangelicals provide an I teresting sermon on the Bible. I’m very grateful to them.
Why has the Church been so late go grasp the usefulness of TV? St. Paul would hxve lover it. EWT is a disgrace.
on May 2nd, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Hello Ann (and All),
It’s my understanding that in fact years ago the USCCB tried to establish a television network that would present programming for Catholics and people interested in Catholicism under the general guidance of the bishops. And it’s also my understanding that EWTN was far more popular than this network started by the USCCB and that the USCCB sponsored network in time folded. I am even told that the USCCB tried to prevent Mother Angelica from doing her spearheading work on EWTN on the grounds that she’s a cloistered nun. And finally the story goes that EWTN triumphed while the USCCB network failed because the latter network was more liberal in content than EWTN.
However, while I believe all this I cannot provide documentation. I’m told this is documented in Raymond Arroyo’s biography of Mother Angelica and after ample exposure to Mr. Arroyo’s broadcasts I refuse to read any of his books or do anything that might enrich him further.
on May 3rd, 2009 at 11:35 am
Mollie–
Thanks for the link to the interview on EWTN. I found it to be, for the most part, an intelligent discussion–one we don’t often hear from the mainstream media.
I had a different take than you did on the interviewer’s use of the term, “prudential judgments.” I don’t think Arroyo or Sirico were claiming that whether to torture or not is a prudential judgment. I think they were claiming that whether waterboarding is torture or not is a prudential judgment. I don’t think the Catechism defines torture, but only describes it. I can see reasonable arguments both pro and con. I don’t even know if Fr. Sirico took a position on whether or not he thought waterboarding was torture, claiming he needed to know more about it. I think we all do.
on May 3rd, 2009 at 3:45 pm
I had a passing acquaintance with Sirico in the early 1970s and head him speak a couple of times.
What I read about him today does not surprise me. He was quite cunning and knew how to bamboozle even some of the most perceptive folk back then.
on May 3rd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Mark: I didn’t say anything specific about the application of “prudential judgment” here. But as far as waterboarding goes, the record is pretty unambiguous. It was always considered torture under U.S. law and international treaties — until the Bush administration commissioned legal opinions suggesting otherwise. But Sirico could be excused for not knowing that. The question put to him was, “What is the Church’s position on these techniques?” And I don’t see how it’s possible to define waterboarding, especially in combination with all of the other documented abuses, as something other than the use of “physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred.”
on May 3rd, 2009 at 5:33 pm
Mollie–
I don’t think waterboarding was always unambiguously considered torture under U.S law, but I could be wrong there. Claiming that Bush “commissioned” legal opinions to suggest otherwise seems a bit harsh. Isn’t it possible that he simply wanted to know what his options were in carrying out his sworn duty to protect us from our enemies?
Lastly, the Catechism section you cite implies mutilation and amputation are examples of torture. I think that’s pretty clear. I think it’s also pretty clear that waterboarding falls well short of mutilation and amputaton. Is it physical violence to pour water on someone’s head so that they think they’re drowning when they’re actually in no physical danger? Perhaps, but in my opinion, it falls into a gray area–I don’t think it’s nearly as black and white as you suggest.
on May 3rd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
A word in support (!) of EWTN. During Holy Week they played a old (1972, I think) but wonderful video of the St. Matthew Passion (the splendid Emma Kirkby had one of the soprano parts). On the other hand, they broadcast it at 2 AM or thereabouts, and I wonder if that was to minimize the chance of any “real Catholics” denouncing the station for featuring music by a (gulp!) genuine Lutheran.
If indeed, any of those real Catholic guuardians of orthodoxy a) have ever heard of J.S. Bach, or b) realize that he was a Protestant.
on May 4th, 2009 at 9:51 am
the Catechism section you cite implies mutilation and amputation are examples of torture. I think that’s pretty clear.
The section I cited lists, in sequence, a number of different violations of human dignity, all of which (according to the Church) violate the commandment not to kill. So, in order: “kidnapping and hostage taking”; then “terrorism”; then “torture”; and lastly non-medical “amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations.” The fifth sentence in that paragraph is obviously not intended as a limitation or expansion on the fourth; it stands alone.
I think you’re giving President Bush and his appointees far too much benefit of the doubt. I’m not sure what doubts are left to give them the benefit of, quite frankly. But if Bush wanted sincere and comprehensive legal advice from Yoo, Bybee, et al., he was very ill served, because they should have told him that yes, waterboarding is torture, and has been prosecuted as such by the U.S. in the past.
Nicholas — I DVR’d that airing of the “Passion” (to prep for seeing the Jonathan Miller production I blogged about). I also watched some of their Holy-Week-from-Rome programming. So I won’t say EWTN never gave me anything!
on May 4th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Between this blog and Mr. Moses’ above, we seem to have folks such as Drakes, Proska, Sirico who want to parse definitions, descriptions, bring in the Just War Theory, etc. and apply the same defense in the political arena to catholic morality in terms of torture.
Here is a Rocco Palmo quote “Rights Talk” today from B16: http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2009/05/rights-talk.html
Some highlights: “After studying work, democracy, globalisation, solidarity and subsidiarity in relation to the social teaching of the Church, your Academy has chosen to return to the central question of the dignity of the human person and human rights, a point of encounter between the doctrine of the Church and contemporary society.”
“The world’s great religions and philosophies have illuminated some aspects of these human rights, which are concisely expressed in “the golden rule” found in the Gospel: “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Lk 6:31; cf. Mt 7:12). The Church has always affirmed that fundamental rights, above and beyond the different ways in which they are formulated and the different degrees of importance they may have in various cultural contexts, are to be upheld and accorded universal recognition because they are inherent in the very nature of man, who is created in the image and likeness of God. If all human beings are created in the image and likeness of God, then they share a common nature that binds them together and calls for universal respect. The Church, assimilating the teaching of Christ, considers the person as “the worthiest of nature” (St. Thomas Aquinas, De potentia, 9, 3) and has taught that the ethical and political order that governs relationships between persons finds its origin in the very structure of man’s being.”
“In the middle of the last century, after the vast suffering caused by two terrible world wars and the unspeakable crimes perpetrated by totalitarian ideologies, the international community acquired a new system of international law based on human rights. In this, it appears to have acted in conformity with the message that my predecessor Benedict XV proclaimed when he called on the belligerents of the First World War to “transform the material force of arms into the moral force of law” (”Note to the Heads of the Belligerent Peoples”, 1 August 1917).
Human rights became the reference point of a shared universal ethos – at least at the level of aspiration – for most of humankind. These rights have been ratified by almost every State in the world. The Second Vatican Council, in the Declaration Dignitatis Humanae, as well as my predecessors Paul VI and John Paul II, forcefully referred to the right to life and the right to freedom of conscience and religion as being at the centre of those rights that spring from human nature itself.”
It appears that some folks are twisting themselves into pretzels in order to use the same political/legal methods as the last administration and now applying them to catholic morality. Our history is riddled with examples of what happens when human rights are not respected even in the face of threats, wars, dangers,etc.
How would some of you define “brainwashing” as used during the Korean War or Vietnam War?
What would returning prisoners say about your attempts to parse torture as if it only includes physical marks?
Why don’t you ask Senator McCain what is torture?
I find the exercise to justify the means by the ends to fall into the same category as the Man for All Seasons line – what happens when you remove all laws to destroy the devil and you at last face the devil but have no law left to use or defend yourself?
on May 4th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
Bill–
It seems like you’re taking me to task for something, but I’m having trouble figuring out what, exactly. I agree with you that the ends do not justify the means. I think it’s wrong to torture, even in the ticking time bomb scenario. That may put me in the minority.
My point is that it’s not clear to me that waterboarding is torture. Is that such an unreasonable point of view?
on May 4th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Sorry – you are much clearer now. Let me ask – have you ever been waterboarded? If you have, then I think the answer to your question will be crystal clear.
on May 4th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Nope, I’ve never been waterboarded. My guess is, neither have you. Which is sort of my point. There’s a lot we don’t know about it. My sense is many people WANT (NEED?) to believe the worst about Bush and what he did. Not unlike how some conservatives felt about Clinton.
on May 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Mark, why don’t you give this a read: http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/
A sample:
on May 4th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Grant–
Thanks for the link, every bit of information helps. I don’t know much about this organization (their website does not disclose their funding source), so I would be a little leery of relying too much on them, but clearly this former marine instructor believes waterboarding is torture, but if you read closely, you’ll notice:
1) SERE staff were required to undergo the water board “at its fullest.” Think about this for a moment. That means we regularly tortured our own military personnel. Regularly. To the fullest. Do you really think we would “torture” our own people like that? Do you really think no one would have ever blown the whistle if they really believed this were torture? Not one instructor? Not one victim?
2) The gentleman quoted has personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. Again, ponder that for a moment. Hundreds of people he claims he tortured. As far as I can tell, he’s not even expressed remorse. Change waterboarding to amputation (something that’s clearly torture). Do you think he would have led, witnessed and supervised the amputation of hundreds of military personnel? Even one? Can you see now why I think it’s much more of a gray area?
on May 4th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Mark: There is no moral equivalency between using waterboarding as part of military resistance training, to which trainees voluntarily submit, to prepare themselves in case they are taken prisoner by enemies who torture — and waterboarding prisoners in order to extract confessions.
on May 4th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
Mollie–
I think you raise a fair point in that the voluntary nature of an action has a bearing on its morality, but I think you go too far in thinking there is “no” equivalency between waterboarding one of our own and waterboarding one of our enemy. More importantly, I don’t think you get to the nub of my question. Let me put it differently: Do you think people would regularly and voluntarily submit to amputation, or mutilation? If the answer is “No, of course not, no one in their right mind would ever voluntarily submit to torture!” you may better see where I’m coming from.
Do you think Keith Olbermann would consider taking up Sean Hannity on his offer to be waterboarded if Olbermann really, really, REALY, believed it were torture? I don’t. (ok, with Olbermann, I could be wrong)
on May 4th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
People do voluntarily submit to amputation, in fact, under certain circumstances, which is why the Catechism makes a point of noting that there are circumstances when it wouldn’t violate human dignity. More to the point, there are obvious differences between mutilation and waterboarding that explain why SERE training would involve the latter but not the former. They don’t, however, lead to the conclusion that one can qualify as torture and the other can’t… Unless you’re applying the Bybee definition of what constitutes “torture,” but that would be begging the question.
on May 5th, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Hello All,
I didn’t have the opportunity to listen to this EWTN interview till today (when I finished grading my midterms). A few quick comments:
First, I very much appreciate Mark’s charitable interpretation of the discussion here. I think this is a good example of the kind of charity Christians should apply in general.
That said, now that I have seen and heard this interview I tend to side with Mollie’s original interpretation. Mark rightly observes that most of the discussion on torture here focused on questions like “Is water boarding torture?”. But when Mr. Arroyo first brought up the subjects of torture and immigration, he said explicitly that these were matters or prudential judgment while abortion is intrinsically evil, and Fr. Sirico did not correct Mr. Arroyo’s erroneous statement on torture.
I was also very much dismayed when the discussion turned to same sex marriage and Fr. Sirico claimed that the growing acceptance of same sex marriage is the result of the acceptance of contraception in Christianity, first officially by the Anglican Church in the 1930 Lambeth conference. I have heard this causal claim made many times over the past few years by various right wing Catholics, always without any substantive proof. Father Sirico elaborated on his statement, claiming that once Christians accepted recreational sex (which I assume he thinks goes hand-in-hand with accepting contraception), then the door was opened for the acceptance of all sorts of relationships that were previously condemned, including in particular homosexual relationships. I think Sirico’s claims are reckless when he makes them with no supporting evidence, and terribly insulting to gay people in committed monogamous relationships.
And in case anyone wants to know, I am obeying Church teaching on sexual matters, including abstaining from contraception in my marriage. But statements like the ones I just heard do not strengthen my commitment to the Roman Catholic Church. Indeed, when I hear statements like Fr. Sirico’s I’m tempted to leave the Roman Catholic Church. So from now on I’ll try to avoid Fr. Sirico’s statements.
And I’ll remember all of the gay people who are participants here in my prayers this week in light of Fr. Sirico’s cruel and uninformed remarks.