‘Sins of Admission’
You’ll recall the controversy over Archbishop Chaput’s decision to bar the children of a lesbian couple from returning to their Catholic school next year. In the course of those conversations on dotCommonweal, several readers asked, “Why would gay parents want to send their kids to Catholic school?” To help answer that question, we’re publishing a piece by a mother who, along with her partner, decided to send her adopted sons to Catholic school.
To be honest, we never expected a welcome. We certainly never expected an invitation. But there we were, five years ago, two women in our pastor’s office, letting him know that we were a couple (in case he hadn’t picked up on that) and that we would in a few weeks be showing up at church not to sit in our separate spots (she in the choir, I in the middle-back) but to sit as a family with our two newly adopted sons in tow.
We didn’t want that reality just sprung on him, a thoughtful and decent man who, we expected, might get an earful from a few parishioners in the ensuing days and weeks. We asked if our coming to church like that was OK with him. Our priest said he appreciated the heads-up. “Just come, just come,” he insisted, expressing considerable relief that we had nothing else to discuss (“When I saw your names in my appointment book, I was afraid you might be asking me to bless your union”). He then inquired as to the boys’ names and ages and, hearing that the eldest would be almost six, asked, “Will you send him here, then, for school?” My partner and I shot a glance at each other. We said we hadn’t figured that was a possibility. We’d been struggling with the school question a bit. Sending the kids to the village public school in the very rural district where we lived was out of the question. We wanted a more demanding education for them. Sending them to our parish school in the small city in which we worked was, we had thought, equally out of the question. The priest raised both eyebrows. “No, not out of the question. Not at all. Send them here. In fact, I don’t even think you’d be the first same-sex couple to do so.” We’d had no idea. He thought a bit, came up with the family’s name, and said he thought all three of the girls were still enrolled and doing fine. We were stunned. Of course we’d want to send our kids there, then. Of course.
Read the rest right here.
No doubt, I can identify with the “argumentation-by capitalization” contributer. This does not change the fact that Bishop Chaput recognizes that it would be a sin of omission to deny the truth about The Truth. Those who profess to be Catholic, have been called to Witness to The Truth of Love from The Beginning out of Charity for the Universal Truth of Love and His Beloved.
Thank you for posting this. There is hope, after all, and good news, after all!
This does not change the fact that Bishop Chaput recognizes that it would be a sin of omission to deny the truth about The Truth. Those who profess to be Catholic, have been called to Witness to The Truth of Love from The Beginning out of Charity for the Universal Truth of Love and His Beloved.
To Love is to Suffer. To avoid Suffering, one must not Love. But, then one Suffers from not loving. Therefore, to Love is to Suffer, not to Love is to Suffer, to Suffer is to Suffer. To be Happy is to Love, to be Happy, then, is to Suffer, but Suffering makes one unhappy, therefore, to be unhappy one must Love, or Love to Suffer, or Suffer from too much happiness.
Oh, David. Suffering paves the way to depth, and ultimately joy. Do not lose sight of hope! Unite your sufferings with Christ’s on the cross. Do this and you will gladly suffer any trial for love of Him!
A couple of things: in the new Psycholgy Today has an article by Thomas Plante scoring Bertone on his saying homosexuality is the cause of pedophilia.
But as we’ve seen on recent threads, the ease in which the issue of homosexuality is approached by posters makes real discussion difficult.
The Obama memorandum on gay rights for being dsurogates at hospitals was met by a quick rejoinder from Focus on the family saying it was an attack on marriage,
I found that not credible as I find Chaput’s approach to the Boulder school incident – the reactions of the school parents there reported by NCR show his appraoch as counterproductive.
I think it speaks volumes that the author has to be anonymous (just as ther eoccasional pieces by a priest who has to use an alias to write.)
The governnace system demands loyalty and obedience above all (see my post about women and Noonan above) and it is carried on by supporters who trot out flabby generalizations about the “truth.”
“I think it speaks volumes that the author has to be anonymous…”
Amen!!!
A da*n sad commentary on the deplorable state of intrachurch communication.
Just another part of enabling and the resultant ecclesial dysfunction.
Wonderful piece – thanks be to god for this pastor and that good couple.
The editors of Commonweal are to be congratulated on their courage to contract and publish this very honest piece of writing.
It will likely cost them a few subscribers but hopefully that will be offset by new subscriptions.
Bravo for the bravery to speak to the Truth of love of Catholicism, children and a partner!
A very thoughtful article, and a nice shout out to Jean Raber by the author. :)
An earlier thread focused on the interview with Woody Allen in the current issue of Commonweal. Like Jean, I found the interview sad and depressing. The anonymous author of the article that is the focus of this thread quoted Karl Rahner to make a good point. The quote (reproduced below) jumped out at me as the cosmic dimension that Woody Allen’s view of existence is unfortunately missing:
“For a Christian, his Christian existence is ultimately the totality of his existence. This totality opens out in the dark abyss of the wilderness which we call God. When one undertakes something like this, he stands before the great thinkers, the saints, and finally Jesus Christ. The abyss of existence opens up in front of him. He knows that he has not thought enough, has not loved enough, has not suffered enough.”
I am confused as to Commonweal’s intention for publishing this article. Do the publishers of Commonweal assent to The Teaching of The Magisterium regarding homosexuality or do they dissent from The Teaching of The Magisterium regarding homosexuality?
this is a great piece. are there narcissitic, hedonistic, promiscuous homosexuals who live far from god? sure. i don’t think anonymous comes across as one of those. in my own life, the homosexuals i have met and dealt with professionally or socially seem pretty much ordinary and on the narcisstic-hedonistic-promiscuous scale don’t seem to trend towards the “bad” end at all, compared to the entire population of people i interact with. from my perspective, some re-thinking of the church’s teaching on homosexuality might be in order.
(i am not channeling e. e. cummings, just simply trying contribute to the conservation of capitals effort on dotcommonweal)
Nancy,
I don’t think this article expresses dissent or assent in the framework you have provided. It portrays a real-life scenario, in which the CCC’s teaching on homosexuality, that all persons must be accepted without discrimination, is being followed. It serves as an exemplary pastoral decision to not exclude students based on the orientation of their parents. It is refreshing and laudable for me to see “the softer side of sears”, so to speak.
Amiga, with all due respect, my question is:
Do the publishers of Commonweal assent to The Teaching of the Magisterium regarding homosexuality or do they dissent from The Teaching of the Magisterium regarding homosexuality?
Thank you for this extremely thoughtful article. It’s a fine witness to faith.
Nancy,
I Read You The First Time Around, With All Due Respect.
The actions of the welcoming pastor illustrate Catholic moral theology’s pastoral side, an aspect of church tradition that is often forgotten these days.
Nancy,
We sympathize with your personal situation in this matter. And we pray that God will give you strength to work out your conflicts. Knowing that you should not project your anguish onto others. The people in the story have reconciled their lives with God according to their conscience. Remember St Paul very clearly asserts that conscience reigns.
“When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. “(Rom 2:1-16; interestingly, in these two chapter of Romans St. Paul summarizes Wisdom 13-19)
Nancy:
“And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.”
Thanks, Commonweal, for making available Anonymous’s article.
Has the Church ever authoritatively taught a self-understanding that excluded the possibility of her ever binding the faithful on pain of damnation to false teachings on sexual thoughts, feelings, and actions, surely matters of morals, for two thousand years? If the Church were to change, oops, I mean, you know, develop its teachings on the necessary link between openness to procreation in heterosexual marriage and all thoughts, desires, and deeds related to being “in the mood,” would we have a huge problem on our hands as Catholics? Or would it be no big deal, requiring no adjustments for our current model of the capacity and trustworthiness of the Magisterium of the shepherds? No adjustments to our understanding of why being a Roman Catholic rather than an Anglican, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Methodist or purpose-driven affiliate of Chuck’s House of God might matter for salvation, even a tad? For an ex-atheist seeking divinization, could anything count as a “mistake” in the selection of a faith community?
“You can trust Us to hand down to you the Faith once delivered, set forth in very specific terms, even though we’ve been wrong about sex for our entire history, conditioning its goodness on procreation. Be at peace, my children.”
This is one of the most thoughtful and moving articles I’ve read in a long, long time. It makes me proud to be a Catholic and proud to be a Commonweal reader. I gave the article to my husband, who gave it to our parish priest. I hope this piece finds the wide readership that it deserves.
Thank you, Anonymous, for writing this. God bless you and your family.
It’s curious that the author would complain about argumentation-by-capitalization, since she herself relies on argumentation-by-end-of-conversation. How does the author describe the seriousness with which she treated the teaching of the church and its 2000 years of accumulated wisdom? This way:
“I knew that our love was good. It was as simple as that.”
How insular, how quaint, how convenient, how…high school-ish.
Mote, eye.
Nancy, I doubt I empathize with your dilemma to the extent that Bill M appears to. Perhaps that is why in the Bertone Vs. Benedict thread when you rejected “homosexuality” as applying to “personhood” (April 13: 8:04pm) I invited to to “have a brew” since earlier reference had been made to “pubtalk”.
I did think of you when I read Anonymous’ story. But I also thought and this is by way of a response for your plea to Commonweal that Commonweal in publishing the story stands in the great tradition that Jesus used. He told stories. He told stories that in his day challenged The Law as interpreted by both the rival Pharisees and Sadducees. He didn’t supply answers he left that for his listeners to interpret. That is what Commonweal has done by sharing Anonymous story.
But you want a black & white answer. Since there is no black and white answer to Anonymous’ “personhood” story you now want the security of knowing that Commonweal is a dissenter from the CCC Law and that will make you feel better. I can understand your anguish but I have little sympathy for it because at some point you have to grow up and begin thinking for yourself and not let the priestly caste do all your thinking for you. That is the essence of our journey to find redemption in Christ.
Good luck and God bless!
Grant—
You have a knack for letting me know when you think I’ve made an effective point on an issue: you argue me, not the issue.
What issue? That you’ve decided the author hasn’t sufficiently grappled with all that tradition you’re embodying so well? No, Mark. You’re scoring cheap (high-school) points, and you know it.
How insular, how quaint, how convenient, how…high school-ish.
How contemptuous.
“What issue? That you’ve decided the author hasn’t sufficiently grappled with all that tradition you’re embodying so well?”
Actually, if you read my comment more carefully, you’ll see it’s that the author has not *described* sufficiently how she has grappled with the tradition. So where does that leave the reader? I don’t mean to give offense, but I would have thought Commonweal’s response to the draft account would have been along the lines of:
Dear Ms. Anonymous:
Thank you very much for your moving and heartfelt account. However, given that your Catholic upbringing and the importance you attach to remaining in the Catholic faith are critical to your account, we need just a little more on how you resolved the apparent contradiction between the Catholic church’s clear teaching on the matter, and the life you’ve chosen to live. In fact, without that, there’s really no story. We’re afraid “it was as simple as that” would not meet the standards of our demanding readership.
Apologies to all if I’m not embodying the tradition as I should.
One of the clear fault lines dividing the Church is how one sees the tradition of the Church abnd, as with Nancy the magisterium.
The possibility of development is shut down by the “witness” of Mark and et al.
Evewrything is clear and neat in that world.
Another fault line is how diminished the pastoral has become for many.
We’ll keep discussing this over and over but it won’t be settled by “I’m right, you’re wrong” and sometimes “I’m better” kinds of posts/discussions.
I fear we’re in another of the impasses we’ve also talked about.
Mark has the gall to say Anonymous has not discerned enough about her positions. What does Mark say about the other 1 billion Catholics who do not come close to her education and backround?. He trusts too much in Betrone and Hoyos.. thank God only about 10K of the billion Catholics know who these dudes are and what they ‘teach’ .
Mark Proska, here is the sentence that you quoted and objected to:
I knew that our love was good. It was as simple as that.
Let me help the reader of this blog assess your comment by quoting the entire paragraph:
I do not take the teachings of the church and its two thousand years of accumulated wisdom lightly. I never have. But in the actual experience of loving my partner, I knew that our love was good. It was as simple as that. Our love as we experienced it was a flowering of our faith, and not its undoing. This was so overwhelmingly apparent that I was immediately suspicious of my own self. The possibilities for self-deception are infinite, I knew. And I was sure “I know that our love is good” was right up there with “It seemed like a good idea at the time” as the phrase of choice of love- and lust-addled adulterers and sundry other kinds of sinner. But at the end of the day, one is left with oneself, one’s conscience (however formed), and the stirrings of the Spirit. At the time I listened over and over again to a jazzy rendition of the Quaker hymn “How Can I Keep from Singing?” and decided, ultimately, to sing.
Magisterium? Not so much.
Clarification on my words to Nancy. She revealed to us some time ago that her son is a homosexual. (I believe I understood her right. If not I apologize) My words to her were in that light. Many good Catholic parents have a hard time with this reality. I know a few.
Claire–
Thanks for the expansion on what I quoted. Personally, I found the rest of the paragraph essentially repeated what I had quoted, but others may read more into it. If anyting, it seems the author realizes she may be taking the easy way out–I think that nagging sense of doubt may some day be her lifeline. As Catholics, we’re called to more than a “however formed” conscience.
Bill–I wonder if some comments are better suited to a private email.
Mark: as one can tell from reading her essay, she has had much more religious education and time in prayer than me and perhaps than most lay people reading this blog. I found that this paragraph showed that she tried her best to understand her conscience. In spite of her efforts, she finds that her call is to love another woman. After years of study, years of prayer, and who knows how much time in discernment, she finds that her conscience is not aligned with the Magisterium. What more could she do? When will you relent and say that it’s ok for her to have a homosexual relationship?
I think never. That is, I think you are stating that, regardless of how much one studies and prays and tries to discern, it is never right to disobey the Magisterium.
Unless you admit that disobeying the Magisterium could have been the right thing to do in some historical instances, but there is in your view something special about homosexual relationships so that you know with certainty that in that case the Magisterium is right? Like, I dunno … homosexual relationships are obviously disgusting?
As Catholics, we’re called to more than a “however formed” conscience.
As human beings we’re called upon to follow our consciences, and obviously when it comes to important moral decisions, we must make a reasonable and responsible effort to have sufficient information on which our conscience may act. If the Catholic notion of a “well-formed” conscience is to have any meaning, it can’t simply be to ponder a moral question until you conclude that the Church is right, otherwise you must ponder more. That is just blind obedience under another name.
I think that nagging sense of doubt may some day be her lifeline.
I did not sense any “nagging sense of doubt” in the article, and so I have to wonder, “Lifeline to what?” You seem to believe that, since you cannot agree with this woman’s conclusion, she is living in violation of her “real” conscience and in need of a “lifeline.”
Although I didn’t see any “nagging sense of doubt,” I do think it’s a positive thing to have a little doubt that you are the one who always knows the truth, and that people who disagree with you are lying, or disagreeing in bad faith.
Regarding the concept in another thread about “the Court of the Gentiles,” who wants to have a dialogue with Catholics if their attitude is, “We’re always right because we have the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and you’re always wrong, so let us enlighten you”?
— are there narcissitic, hedonistic, promiscuous HETEROSEXUALS who live far from god? —
I sure as hell have known and worked with more than a few over the years.
Nancy: the CCC says, in part:
#2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
A comment on “this inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial” is that the only trial I as a gay man experience is from the church and state that continue to treat me in the ways that they do. My being gay in and of itself is absolutely no trial to or for me. It’s only the good Christians and Americans who make my life difficult.
Nancy:
I didn’t know/remember that you have a gay son. You are not alone. A good group for you to contact who have walked in your shoes already is called “Fortunate Families.” (http://www.fortunatefamilies.com/about.htm)
From their website:
“Fortunate Families ministers primarily with Catholic parents of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) daughters and sons. We believe when parents explore and value their stories, they are empowered to share that story with their family circle, their faith community and the larger community.
Founded by Casey & Mary Ellen Lopata in 2004, after 12 years with Catholic Gay and Lesbian Family Ministry in Rochester, NY, Fortunate Families is a national network of Catholic parents who reach out in support, and encourage each other to work for welcome and justice in the Church for our LGBT daughters and sons.
Fortunate Families connects people and provides resources and programs to Catholic parents and ministry groups. The Board of Directors comes from across the country and the Fortunate Families Newsletter goes to all fifty states.
Grounded in Catholic tradition, Fortunate Families welcomes families of all faiths.”
My only comment is that your son being gay is NOT the end of the world! In fact, you might find that getting to know his new life is possibly the beginning of a newer world for you.
You can contact them at: info@fortunatefamilies.com, or via:
Fortunate Families
PO Box 18082
Rochester, NY 14618-0082
585-698-6100
I have met the Lopatas and they are truly some of the most delightful, non-judgmental people that you would ever want to meet and know. Do yourself a favor and contact them sooner rather than later.
A touchy subject like this requires reflection [lest one might suffer from foot in mouth disease]. OK, I’m done now. The God you all describe, at least to me, is inclusive,
Claire—
That’s a thought provoking post, I hope I can do it justice. Here are a few of the reasons I found the woman’s letter so unsatisfying.
1. She’s obviously well-read and well-educated. She certainly has the capacity to intellectually understand the Church’s teaching, and address it at a mature level. There’s nothing in her account explaining how she did that. She did not engage the reader who has a different view.
2. One reads nothing of how, presumably initially, she tried to deal with these temptations. It reads like she was bee-bopping along in her life, went to an Andrew Sullivan talk, got hit by a bolt of lightning, and became a gay Catholic. Did she seek professional counseling that conformed to Church teaching and find it unhelpful? Why does she think it did not have the intended effect? Answers to these questions could have spoken volumes, to at least.
3. At first, she wants to draw in the reader (I *am* you), but when she finally gets to the all-important paragraph you quote, she wants to distance the reader. “I have my reasons, they are all in my conscience, you can never understand them, you just have to trust me, ultimately we are all separate and I am my own island—go away and let me be me!!” I know these are not her exact words, but I can’t read them any other way. Please ma’am, I want some more.
I will relent and say her choice is perfectly in consistent with being a faithful Catholic when I believe that to be the case. Could my views change? Absolutely. They’ve changed, modestly, since I was in college. Perhaps one day it will all be more personal to me, and I’ll have a more informed view. Until then, I’ll need much more than this.
I think it’s a bit cheeky to direct people to other blogs, but at Mirror of Justice they have an account by Ryan T. Anderson, that…well, decide for yourself.
I to am the parent of a gay child…lesbian.
When she came out to me about ten years ago, I was not taken by surprise, nor was I upset. She did not make herself the way she is, nor did I or her mother. She is who she is.
She is a fine woman, who never knowingly hurts anybody, and treats everyone with respect.
She is that way because that is the way she was raised, because that is the way her mother and I live our life.
Would that I could say that all Catholics are the same.
She is God’s child, just at much as I am, I cannot accept a God who says she is not. The Church is wrong, but they believe they are right, therefore I am no longer a Catholic. An abusing priest is the Bishops son, but the Church rejects my daughter, who never hurt anyone.
If genuine,Cowtan’s thoughts are helpful. If not, fugetaboutim.
I think it’s a bit cheeky to direct people to other blogs, but at Mirror of Justice they have an account by Ryan T. Anderson, that…well, decide for yourself.
Mark,
The article which you refer us to (which I had already read) on Mirror of Justice is a 3-year-old article from First Things posted by Robert George without comment. I really don’t know what it’s doing there. My heart goes out to the young man being written about, but in response to the question, “Is there any student more alienated and marginalized on campus . . . ?” I would have to say that as someone who went to Ohio State University in the late 1960s, when nobody dared to acknowledge that they were gay, I would have to say I felt at least as alienated and marginalized as this young man, if not more. And I am sure a great many gay students, particularly in high schools in smaller towns, feel just as alienated and marginalized.
I fail to see how the article is relevant to this discussion, in any case. I wonder what has become of the young man in the past three years. Few mental-health professionals believe it is possible to change sexual orientation, and trying to does not seem to be recommended by the Catholic Church, either. As I say, I feel sympathy and empathy for the young man, but what the Church (or the CDF and pastoral letters from the USCCB, if you prefer) tells him is to keep his orientation quiet, be celibate, and be the best Catholic he can be.
They are genuine…………..I came back actually to change my wording.
I should have opened with…………..I am the PROUD parent of a gay child.
I suppose the Church does not say that they reject her, and many a Catholic does not, but in practice they do…………..one only has to look at the Boulder situation to realise that what they say and what they do are two different things.
Mark, you have good points. That woman does not try to reason the reader, and indeed, one does not see that her decisions about her life were made in a rational way rather than emotional. I am not sure that reasoning would have helped; it would have looked as though she was attacking the Magisterium; she is not trying to do that, but only experiencing that it does not work for her, and she seems to merely accept that instead of trying to put it all together.
I took a quick look at that Mirror of Justice article that you mentioned, and must say that the young man there does the same thing: there is no reasoning to explain why he must repress his homosexual desires and how the teachings of the Magisterium make sense to him in his lived experience.
On another note, I am the parent of two teenagers who are active in gay-straight alliances and have friends who are homosexual, and I keep my fingers crossed that neither turns out to be homosexual. It would upset me greatly: I don’t want them to be the target of discrimination, and I’d like to be a grandmother some day!
I don’t see why a decision of conscience must be explained by a lengthy rational argument. Understanding the arguments for and against being in a same sex relationship is certainly important, but if the arguments against leave you unconvinced, I don’t see how you can be criticized for going with your gut feeling, or your heart, or your intuition, or whatever you want to call it.
“I’d like to be a grandmother some day!”
Someone told me is that grandchildren are God’s way of rewarding parents for not strangling their teenagers. And if you’re not going to stangle them, you may as well hug ‘em.
Mark P: it seems to me that you are always trying to pick holes in others defense of homosexual love no matter how tiny the hole may appear. It seems to me that this is some sort of compulsion you have in order to maintain a belief in the rightness of the Magisterium’s view. I do not know why you feel this compulsion but I accept it as your your personal need just as Nancy has her personal needs and I have to be tolerant of them.
Please however do not expect us to think the same way as you do. You are no more “right” than we are. Whether you like it or not the Magisterium doesn’t have all the answers and that has been proven over and over again through out history. You are sir, trying just a little too hard. That I am afraid is your problem not ours. But in doing so you are making it ours and we are challenged with keeping the dialogue civil when what we would really like to do is tell you to get a grip or take a hike.
In the spirit of a laying it on the line I have three children aged 35 to 42. Two are heterosexual and one is bisexual. He lives with a female partner who is also bisexual. They make a lovely couple and I wish they really would get married and have kids because I think they would make great parents. I admit I do not understand the desire not to have children although I think I do understand their bisexuality.
She has been very good for him. He exhibits the best in Christian charity and social justice. In that sense he is more Catholic than many Catholics. I love him deeply and am very proud of what he has tried to accomplish with his life. Personally the leaders of this Church haven’t a clue of what it is like to sit in my set as a parent or Nancy’s if Bill M’s belief about her son is true.
Unfortunately they have possibly ruined Nancy’s take on her son, and I have come to see that they have nothing of importance to say to either me or my son or his partner. Unlike my son I will not leave this Church. The CCC and the Magisterium live in another age and I have come to terms with the fact they are not infallible and 2000 years of tradition and error do not make them right. What Bertone & others who support his line tell us is that they are simply ignorant humans no more no less. They are homophones like lots of other folks in and outside of any religious institution.
I simply can’t remember when I have been so disgusted with the leadership of this oh so fallible Church.
Commenters fault Anonymous’s account of her choice to pursue forbidden lesbian romance. Because of what the article is, I’m not sure this criticism makes sense.
The point of Anonymous’s article is to explain why a lesbian Catholic sends her children to a Catholic school. The point of her article is not to present a defended interpretion of Catholicism and its place in a true description of the world that would support a well-argued rationale for lesbians to take actions listed as grave matter by the teaching authorities. To fault Anonymous’s article because it does not offer this makes sense only if she can’t make her point without it. But Anonymous can and does make her point without it.
Anonymous delivers the promised goods. She shows us the ways her biography hooks up with the life of the Church, and tells us she believes Catholic schools will serve well her sons, especially since bullying is less of problem. She shows us why she’s got an informed view about what these schools offer, and tells us she wants it for her sons. That’s it. She’s done. And to the degree that she is representative, she has also explained why other Catholic lesbians send their kids to Catholic schools, which might or might not help sneak us inside the Boulder thing. It’s a fun article.
One can never reconcile the contradiction between homosexual sexual acts and Sexual Love. Sexual Love exists within a Holy Marriage between a Man and a Woman, as Husband and Wife, united as one Body and one Spirit in Love.
“I have a child who struggles with a homosexual inclination, and I want my child, as I want all my children to know The Truth because I Love them.”
When we presented our Children for Baptism, our desire was that they have Eternal Life, that they would become part of the communion that is the Body of Christ, those who abide in the Word, the Truth of Love, so that one Day, all “their tears would be wiped away”, and they would enjoy eternal Love, where there would be no suffering, united with God in Heaven.
“I knew our love was good” especially in the context of the full paragraph as quoted by Claire is a very convincing line to me.
On an even more “high school” note, I like the Stephen Gately song (written by Andrew Lloyd Webber), “No Matter What”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogjFSW7PqRY
Nancy, the Church has always celebrated homosexual love, though censuring homosexual acts. The love is far more important than the acts, and “love covers a multitude of sins” as Scripture says.
Mark Proska would like gays and lesbians to explain and justify their personal lives with a level of reflection worthy of a candidate for a doctorate in theology. Happily, most young gay people no longer feel they have anything to explain or justify. It is rather the Church that is having difficulty explaining and justifying its teaching, especially in light of the horrific record of church abuse of gays over two millennia.
I love something Jean-Luc Marion said lately: Humanae Vitae is a bug in the life of the church.
For the humane side of church history, where the goodness and reality of same-sex love is celebrated, I guess I’ll have to read John Boswell’s Same-sex Unions in Premodern Europe.
I do think a few people have noted the debate over homosexuality is a red herring here. The issue is not whose views about homosexuality is right. To say that is the issue is to ignore the issue. The issue is not homosexuality, really. It is how you treat someone who you disagree with — for whatever reason you disagree with them. The Christian response must always be what Jesus tried to show us with the Samaritans.
I remember when it was asked “why would lesbians want to send their children to Catholic schools.” Even then I couldn’t believe the question was even raised. There are many reasons why people — including non-Catholics — send their children to Catholic schools. The thing is, many of the people who question this don’t send their own children to Catholic schools, they homeschool. Perhaps that might be the source of their misunderstanding…
John B–
Is it fair to say that many on this blog are always trying to poke holes in the Magisterium? Do you believe they have some sort of unhealthy compulsion to ease their conscience? Or is the train of thought only allowed to run in one direction–leftwards.
Henry Karlson: Do you mean this teaching from Jesus?
“These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: ‘Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans” (Mt 10:5).
The magisterium deserves a poke when its teachings cause untold misery. It’s another abuse issue, basically. Yes, conscience commands that we keep pointing this out.
It is because of articles like this that I have subscribed to Comonweal for the last 17 years. And I plan to email this around to 150 of my closest and dearest friends. God bless this author and her courage and generosity to share her personal story and wisdom with the rest of us
Mark sometimes we are dealing with gaps whereas in your case I was thinking of tiny holes,
I personally take the “Magesterium” with a large grain of salt. A hundred years ago, it condemned democracy, historical scholarship, biblical criticism, ecumenism, free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and even freedom of conscience. It has reversed its position on all of those; I expect it will someday also reverse its position on homosexuality. One day the nickel will drop. “Oh, science tells us homosexuals are born, not made. Natural law tells us to become the good fullness of what God made us.”
Joe
That verse doesn’t say anything negative about the Samaritans, nor does it say Jesus rejected them (as is clear from his whole ministry, if you look at it, and not just one verse out of context). The Fathers suggested that Jesus sent the Apostles to the Jews first for several reasons, among which, it was to be their training, where they would have an easier time at it than if they were out and about with non-Jews (Hence, Chrysostom: Also they were sent to the Jews first, in order that being trained in Judaea, as in a palaestra, they might enter on the arena of the world to contend; thus He taught them like weak nestlings to fly).
But, when pointing to the proper way to love one’s neighbor, he uses the Good Samaritan; while we are used to the parable itself, one thing we often ignore is the kind of choice he made for his example. In the 21st century, it might as well have been the “parable of the Good Homosexual,” and many people will get how he is lifting up someone who is normally condemned as impure as being better than those who think greatly of themselves. John 4 also raises shows Jesus’ ministry reach to the Samaritans. This kind of raising up of the impure is found also in Jesus’ ministry with lepers, Jesus’ touching the dead, and of course, his relationship with tax collectors and sinners. I wish people remembered this. It should indicate far more how we must treat those who we would look down upon (whoever that would be, which will differ from person to person). Let us be like the Publican and recognize our need for mercy — if we do, then we will open up in love to God; if we open up in love to God will will find, as a result, we will indeed love our neighbor and look at them with the eyes of love.
Henry,
Peace. I was just in a playful mood this morning. I find the efforts to reconcile Matthew’s portrayal of Jesus vis-a-vis the Samaritans with Luke’s to be rather unconvincing; whereas you clearly do not. Ironically, I do agree with you about the Good Homosexual. I just think we have a parallel division within Christianity today regarding homosexuality as existed in the days of Jesus regarding Samaritans.
Father O’L: here’s a bit of a sendup to the Boyzone song you featured above:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp9DZvEgYcI&NR=1
Don’t get me wrong: I really like Boyzone’s version.
Now, it seems to me that when a position if stated with which we disagree, more likely than not, we dismiss it in whole or in part as being “emotional, not rational.”
OTOH, we know that our positions are ALWAYS rational, no matter what!
Can someone tell the the justification for capitalizing “magisterium?”
What is wrong with this picture, folks?
Joe
Sounds good! Sometimes, it is difficult to detect the tone of the comment to know where things are going. It seems, though we might different in Gospel exegetics and how to harmonize them, we are in general agreement (and if my tone is rough, often it is because of my fatigue, which sometimes makes me more matter of fact than I would prefer to be).
“Science tells us homosexuals are born, not made.” This statement is not true. Jeanne, you are mistaken.
Jimmy Mac, I don’t think people dismiss the magisterium as being “emotional, not rational” — surely the reverse? — even the Gately song sounds rather like a plea of emotion against cold rationalism of lawmakers.
“Science tells us homosexuals are born, not made.” This statement is not true. Jeanne, you are mistaken.
Jeanne’s statement has all of science behind it and the lived experience and honest testimony of every gay and lesbian person. Nancy, what do you base your position on?
If it is true that “Jeanne’s statement has all of science behind it”, we could identify a separate personhood based upon DNA. The fact is, we live in a Time when there are those (including those who profess to be Catholic) who deny that a Child residing in their Mother’s Womb is a Human Individual despite the fact that their DNA is consistent with that of a Human Person, yet claim that there exists a separate personhood based upon sexual preference, in order that it may appear as if those who refuse to condone homosexual sexual acts are discriminating against a person, when in fact, they are discriminating against demeaning sexual acts. This is a great delusion.
The delusion, Nancy, may be on your part. The more you talk about it the less convincing you may appear. Are you trying to convince us or yourself?
I personally don’t accuse the magisterium (whatever that means) to be motivated by emotion or rationality when it comes to homosexuality. Bias maybe? Self-preservation? Fear of having to backoff from a prior unscientific and mistaken position?
I don’t get why this thread has turned into another debate about homosexuality.
The priest in Anonymous’s piece made it clear he was not going to sanction her relationship with a blessing. But he seems to understand that it is not Anonymous and her partner who seek admission to the school but their children.
These comments from an atheist make valid points IMHO: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/8526/
Jean, it is quite easy to understand why Nancy saw the article as undermining church teaching on homosexuality. Actually, on some blogs the article would have prompted near-obscene outrage, for some blogs are infested by touchy homophobes. Nancy is not in this category — she just takes the magisterium very seriously, whereas most of us hear have decided (on rational and moral grounds I hope) that the magisterium should change its teaching — something it hates doing and will resist to the end.
“Science tells us that homosexuals are born, not made” — As far as I know the jury is still out on the topic of the constitution of sexual orientation. Black and white disjunctions such as gay/straight, born/made will hardly be found to cover the issue adequately. Nothing in nature is that simple and crude.
Nancy is not in this category — she just takes the magisterium very seriously
Fr. O Leary,
Actually, Nancy’s position is that “homosexual persons” don’t exist. There are no homosexuals, or homosexual persons, only homosexual acts. Consequently, she isn’t quite in synch with the magisterium, if the Catechism and documents from the CDF reflect the views of the magisterium, since they speak of “homosexual persons.”
Nancy seems to deny that persons with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” exist or should be recognized as a group, and that the idea of “homosexual persons,” as she says above, is bogus, and was only invented so that those who commit homosexual acts could claim they were a class of people who were being discriminated against. But, she says, the discrimination is not against the persons, but acts. This does not explain why the Church has decided not to ordain “homosexual persons” who have been and intend to be celibate, since they have not committed any homosexual acts.
There is something to be said for not labeling people, but clearly “homosexuals,” “homosexual persons,” “gay people,” “lesbians,” and so on do actually exist, and they exist whether or not they engage in sexual behavior.
So Nancy agrees with the magisterium that homosexual behavior is impermissible, but her contention that homosexual persons don’t exist does not reflect any official Catholic position that I know of.
David, if one takes documents such as Persona Humana and Homosexualitatis Problema very seriously one is liable to end up entangled in great confusion, as you discern in Nancy’s case. Still I think it is unfair to brand her as homophobic; her good faith seems evident to me. The latter document speaks of homosexual persons but it also speaks of homosexuality as a disordered tendency to self-indulgence, so it would clearly (?) oppose the idea that homosexuality is constitutive of personality in a good, affirmative sense, which may be the point Nancy wants to argue.
More widely, is it such as good idea to form human groups based on sexual orientation? Kinsey’s revelations about the spectrum of male sexuality would discourage the attempt to isolate a clearly defined group of gay men (from the larger group of bisexual men) and still more so in the case of lesbian women. Again, when people are encouraged to embrace “I am gay” as a major statement of personal identity, or Who They Are, this is an expression of a modern ideology. I am teaching the Symposium now and nowhere in it do you find anyone thinking of positioning their identity in terms of sexual orientation.
The buzz you often here, even among gays, about celebrity x or y — “Is he gay? Gosh, he’s Gay! Could she be gay???” — is to my mind a residue of homophobic prejudice. “Coming out” is supposed to wash away the prejudice, and indeed it has effected a tsunami of normalization in first world societies. But still the idea that being gay is something one is supposed to “come out” about is again a function of homophobic prejudice. It make gayness resemble a hidden disease. Consider, if we were gossiping about celebrity x or y and saying, “Is he Jewish? Gosh, he’s Jewish! Could she be Jewish???” — you know what that would tell us! Or if we encouraged people to “come out” as Jewish…
here SHOULD BE hear, and in another posting, hear SHOULD BE here — bah!
Still I think it is unfair to brand her as homophobic; her good faith seems evident to me.
Fr. O Leary,
I didn’t say Nancy was homophobic. It’s a word I try to avoid in these kinds of discussions.
More widely, is it such as good idea to form human groups based on sexual orientation?
Fr. O Leary,
At this point in time? Yes, I think so. The pressure to conform to the “straight lifestyle” is so great that it is estimated that 15% to 20% of gay men in the United States marry heterosexual women. In other countries the percent is far higher. It is estimated to be 90% in China. It is not uncommon to hear complaints about gay people flaunting their “lifestyle” or their relationships. Straight people “flaunt” their heterosexuality all the time. It’s in literature, opera, ballet, movies, televisions shows, commercials, and everyday conversation. Many straight people do not want gay people to exist, or at least they do not want them to be visible. If you ask a co-worker what he did over the weekend, and he says, “My wife and I took the kids to the park,” no one would object to that. If someone answered, “My partner and I finally got around to watching Brokeback Mountain,” even in today’s much less hostile climate, a lot of straight people would consider that “too much information.”
I am sure many people would rather that “Anonymous” had not written the article we are discussing in this thread, but to other gay or lesbian Catholic parents, I am sure it means a lot. I sometimes smile at the phrase “gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender community,” and wonder what group will be added next. But on the other hand, I really do identify in many ways with everyone in that group, and I am glad that, for the sake of each other, people publicly identify themselves as being in those categories and try to help other people in the community.
And I would say that in Denver, it was Archbishop Chaput who was judging two individuals and their children — who were just living a normal, quite life and making no political statement — as part of a group. It could easily be argued that it is our society that forces gay people to identify as a group by classifying them as “not normal.”
Joseph, your conclusion about the suspect nature of “embracing gay identity” proves too much. To say, as you do, that it is suspect to embrace “gay” identity because sexual orientation is many and varied is to ignore that for most of the world, there only two real categories: straight and not straight.
Each and every day, people marry other people of the opposite sex. Are they “embracing” a particular sexual identity? I would argue that they are not — and the reason why we see the notion of “embracing” gay identity as a distinct kind of action is that the larger society has walled it off so that it has to be embraced given the societal presumptions that normal people are not gay (or any variant of “not straight”), and that being gay is not normal or good. It’s as if all gay people are like the minority of very light skinned African Americans who could “pass” as white but who feel as a matter of personal integrity the need to assert the “truth” of their racial heritage. Their need to speak out doesn’t make their identification suspect so much as it highlights the inegalitarian and discriminatory views that still exist in matters of race (and sexual orientation). Retorting that people are every color of the rainbow and therefore they shouldn’t be so eager to embrace a particular racial identity is not much of an answer, especially since, in no small way, standing up for their heritage is a powerful statement on the all too often binary white/not white mentality of the larger culture.
“I knew that our love was good. It was as simple as that.”
It is God Who defines what is Good. Christ Has revealed that any act that is not oriented towards the Will of God, is not an act of Love to begin with.
“… most of us here have decided (on rational and moral grounds I hope) that the magisterium should change its teaching — something it hates doing and will resist to the end.”
I think there is reason to allow childen of homosexual parents into Catholic schools whether the magisterium changes its teaching on homosexuality or not.
Problems oughtn’t to arise for the school, thought this was an argument on this topic in a previous thread.
But certainly problems, or at least discomfort, will arise for Anonymous and her partner when, in the course of their children’s Catholic formation, the kids hear that the parents are in a state of grave sin. I presume they’ve thought through how they’ll respond to this. Many of us who are not homosexual but who are no longer fit to receive Communion by virtue of remarriage after divorce, use of birth control, or the like have to struggle with this if our kids attend Catholic schools.
On the other hand, I presume that when Anonymous and her partner presented their children for baptism, they made the same promise, as all us parents have, to raise our children Catholic. Renegging on that promise would compound the damage, no?
Moreover, I assume that, in addition to learning all about sins, children in Catholic schools also hear that sinners are beloved of God, and that they owe their parents respect regardless of whether those parents are in good standing with the Church or not.
Just to be honest here, I do not agree with Church teaching on homosexuality. I think it is more helpful to see sexual orientation in terms of fidelity or promiscuity rather than gender. But I realize that wholly ignores a large portion of Church teaching on the main purpose of sexuality, which is reproduction.
It is God Who defines what is Good. Christ Has revealed that any act that is not oriented towards the Will of God, is not an act of Love to begin with.
Nancy,
The Church may condemn homosexual acts, but that does not in any way mean that two people with a homosexual orientation cannot genuinely love each other. Shame on you, or anyone else, for suggesting there is not real love between gay or lesbian partners.
You rarely, if ever, make a rational argument for or against your positions, and it is beginning to seem you think you speak for God or the magisterium and sit in judgment of everyone else. Explaining or advocating the position of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church cannot be done in one- or two-sentence messages.
Perhaps I should have clarified my statement regarding “personhood”. By separate personhood, I am referring to an inherent personhood.
To identify oneself as a “homosexual” is to identify with a sexuality that is intrinsically disordered and immoral. All of us have varying degrees of disorder in our Lives. We can overcome these disorders through Christ, Who Is The Essence of Love.
I Pray that all will find Peace in Christ.
To identify oneself as a “homosexual” is to identify with a sexuality that is intrinsically disordered and immoral.
Even accepting the position of the Church that homosexuality is “intrinsically disordered,” on can still identify as a homosexual person. The Catechism speaks of homosexual persons. Is the Catechism mistaken?
One can identify oneself as a diabetic, or an alcoholic (or recovering alcoholic), or a manic-depressive without necessarily embracing disease. One may also be a genius, or a an optimist, or a saint.
I have no idea what “inherent personhood” is, but saying someone is a “homosexual person” is not saying that he or she is some fundamentally different kind of being from any other human person. In the language of the Church, it is someone who has “deep-seated homosexual tendencies,” and in the eyes of the Church it is not shameful or sinful.
These conversations are so difficult to have. I’d like ot express my thanks to everyone who is sharing what is in their hearts. It is not easy to be honest.
“but the Church rejects my daughter, who never hurt anyone.”
Michael Cowtan, if the church has left your daughter feeling that the church hsa rejected her simply because she is a homosexual person, then on behalf of the church, I apologize. The church should love and embrace her. Sometimes the church manages it, as we see in the actions of the pastor in the article.
How one sees this article depends on how one sees the Church.
It also depends on how one views membership in going by the book.
Finally, it depends on how one sees the possibility of change and development in the Church.
We are deeply divided as a community and the current issues around sex abuse by priests and all that that entails has heightened the division.
That division makes the author be anonymous, I fear.
And undernines for many a sense of hope at this time.
I have to say that while I certainly applaud the decision of the parish to accept the author’s children, I found it difficult to see how, ultimately, she will reconcile all of the conflicting components of her personal and professional life while remaining Catholic. The part in which she admits that she interacts daily with people who would despise her if they knew the truth really brings this to the fore: this woman obviously has a lot invested not just personally but professionally with the church that makes her decision to “stay” Catholic somewhat — I don’t know how to say this — conflicted in ways most of us don’t face. Still, there is an element of personal integrity that makes me reject this splitting apart of life and belief and hoping against hope everything will all work out for the best. What does she say to the Catholics who are cruder about expressing anti-gay sentiment or condemning relationships such as hers?
“I have to say that while I certainly applaud the decision of the parish to accept the author’s children, I found it difficult to see how, ultimately, she will reconcile all of the conflicting components of her personal and professional life while remaining Catholic. ”
I agree. I am grateful that it is rarely asked on dotCommonweal, ‘If that’s how feel about it, then why don’t you leave the church?’, because it’s impossible to ask that question without an implied, ‘… and don’t let the door slam you in the *ss on the way out.’. Yet the fact is that many, many people live in a sort of nebulous relationship to the church, one foot in and the other, if not out, then perhaps at least lifted off the ground.
In the Denver archdiocese, it seems clear that they want two-feet-planted-on-the-ground Catholics.
Other places seem more comfortable with ambiguity.
Barbara,
As I read the article, she is talking about interacting with people in her professional capacity who might reject her if they knew of her private life. If that’s all it is, I don’t see a problem. People don’t need to know if their waiter, or dentist, or insurance agent are gay. But if it goes beyond professional relationships, then I agree.
David, here is some information that is helpful in discerning the Catholic Church’s teaching. The Church’s definition of “homosexual persons” can be found in #2358.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
David, there was enough detail given to amount to a fair implication that the author’s professional life is closely linked to an official church organization, maybe Catholic Charities or something of that nature. That’s what I was getting at. I could be totally wrong about that, of course, given the anonymity of the piece. I might be inferring too much from her background (award for pro-life activities, being “paid” to write about Catholic doctrine, etc. She is clearly not a speculative Catholic.)
Nancy, as far as I can interpret the Catholic Church’s teaching from what you linked, the Church has a clear obligation to accept “with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” any gay parishioners, and their children as well. It seems particularly anti-Catholic to reject a child because of who their parents are.
Would anyone encourage a parochial school to reject a student because a parent is divorced? Or commits adultery? Or uses birth control? Or is non-Catholic? Or uses artificial insemination? It seems to me that the Church would be better off if in fact it sought out and welcomed these people, who would appear to be more in need of guidance, by some people’s interpretation, than the unquestioningly devout like Nancy.
And to Mark: One of my most vivid memories of Catholic-school teaching is when the pastor came to my 8th grade class and asked: How do you know that God exists? Students answered with various theories based on evidence – the Bible, the shroud of Turin, what created the universe, etc. But the answer he told us was Faith… it is something you just know in your heart, and it can’t be proven. So to me, it makes perfect sense that that would be the deciding factor in a very devout person’s acceptance of their homosexuality. After all, a cornerstone of Catholicism is faith, which by its very definition is belief in something that cannot be proven, by reason or by scientific theory.
“How one sees this article depends on how one sees the Church.”
And that is the whole point. The reason we stay Catholic is a significant amount of Catholics practice the faith. Unfortunately the magisterium is in the minority here, where it counts. Nicholas Kristoff puts this as well as it can be stated:
http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/17/the-other-catholic-church/?scp=2&sq=kristoff%20april%2017&st=cse
[Anonymous:] “I knew that our love was good. It was as simple as that.”
[Nancy:] It is God Who defines what is Good. Christ Has revealed that any act that is not oriented towards the Will of God, is not an act of Love to begin with.
Nancy, I want to suggest a way agreement between you and Anonymous can happen.
What is good is being made to be because it is the will of God. Whatever is good is the will of God. Human flourishing is good. Reason and experience can attain to knowledge of what is good. If reason and experience show us that virtuous gays are not virtuous despite their gay acts but even through them, then we can say that gay acts do not systematically block human flourishing, and can be a path to that flourishing. Then we can say that gay acts that do not block but promote human flourishing are the will of God. And if this is so, and if Anonymous comes to know it, then we will have no problems holding simultaneously (a) that Anonymous is in the clear, (b) that God defines what is good, and (c) that Christ clues us in to the fact that acts of love are directed to the will of God. So whatever truths you and Anonymous know can take the shape of a harmonious whole which itself is a reflection of the wise loving plan God is.
There are some big “if’s” in that chain of reasoning above. The good news is that it’s an empirical matter whether gay acts necessarily destroy human capacities to be just, support what is weak, nourish what is strong, and contemplate truth with promptness, ease, and joy. What do people who study these things say? They’ll be giving us knowledge of the will of God.
James, one can never reconcile the contradiction between homosexual sexual acts and Sexual Love. Love is not possessive. Here is an article I just found that I believe can help explain the Catholic language regarding homosexuality:
http://couragerc.net/CatholicLanguage.html
Sara–
That’s worth pondering, thanks.
“But the answer he told us was Faith… it is something you just know in your heart, and it can’t be proven. So to me, it makes perfect sense that that would be the deciding factor in a very devout person’s acceptance of their homosexuality. After all, a cornerstone of Catholicism is faith, which by its very definition is belief in something that cannot be proven, by reason or by scientific theory”
Sara, James and others – I’m sorry, but Faith can’t be equated to “something you just know in your heart, and it can’t be proven” That might be part of it, but there are other things that enter into it as well, including revelation and what is taught authoritatively. These latter aspects can serve as fiery furnaces that test and purify what we think we know from our heart.
Our hearts, by themselves, are not reliable guides.
Forgive me if this is hurtful – I don’t wish it to be.
Commonweal, a couple of years ago, ran a heartfelt piece by Luke Timothy Johnson that seemed to rest on the same premise: that his lived experience (in this case, with one of his children who is gay) is that there is nothing harmful, and can even be good, in homosexual relationships. I’m sure that, to an extent, he is right – there are good things to come from intimate friendship. Anyone in a good marriage should agree. That LTJ piece had the additional virtue of acknowledging that this sense of his heart contradicts the received tradition, including scripture.
This argument is not one to just lightly cast aside. He seems a lot smarter than I am, and he’s struggling with it. He’s living in the gray area between perfect assent and open break. I’m sure it’s not easy.
Jim Pauwels raises a question that has troubled me. As a priest I can welcome the couple and their kids or can bless their union informally or can tell them follow their conscience, but further down the road will be some odious and indeed evil church-appproved organization like Courage that is likely to wreck their lives, and doubly likely — in the present case — to wreck the lives of their children. Likewise, were I to persuade someone to become a Christian or a Catholic, might I not be consigning them to abuse and misery due to the Church’s attitudes to sex? I would recommend the lesbian couple to become Episcopalians, for the sake of their child.
I may seem to exaggerate in calling Courage evil, but I am thinking of their links with NARTH.
From my point of view people like Nancy are victims of abuse — and they represent the majority of Catholics. The happy few who can negotiate the reefs of church doctrine thanks to the their enlightened consciences are in a privileged position. Church teaching brainwashes and abuses the majority, even on discredited topics like birth control.
Nancy, thanks for the link. I know about Courage, and have read some of Fr. Harvey’s stuff over the years.
—
Jim writes: Our hearts, by themselves, are not reliable guides.
Exactly. We cannot claim reasons of the heart for making the choice to credit the teaching authority’s teaching that it is in fact a teaching authority, and then rely on all the other stuff it teaches. We must rely upon reason and experience to make that choice. We must measure the teaching authority’s claims by reason and experience (a huge no-no). Otherwise, we’d be engaging in circular reasoning and becoming bad men. I don’t like fideism either.
Imagine people relying upon fideism (the teaching authority says it’s a teaching authority, so on its authority, I’ll believe it’s a teaching authority) in order to shame others into compliance with the words of an oracle in which they “just believe.” Imagine people relying upon fideism in order to bring about in others the belief that they will burn in Hell for all eternity if they don’t comply with the claims of this oracle, even when those claims seem false. Gosh, the very idea of something like that happening is hard to bear.
Our hearts, by themselves, are not reliable guides.
Jim,
I always think of Huckleberry Finn, who is so sure that he’s doing what’s wrong (when he is actually acting from the heart and doing what is right) that he’s convinced he’ll wind up in “the bad place.”
I also think about Joan of Arc, about whom I don’t really know enough, but it seems to me she suffered a martyr’s death at the hands of the Church for believing in her internal vision. She didn’t listen to the Magisterium.
And then one must consider the Apostles, who, if we are to take the Gospels as at all historical, followed Jesus when what he was speaking was “blasphemy” to them as Jews of their time. He didn’t seem to win them over by intellectual arguments.
Our hearts, by themselves, are not reliable guides.
Fair enough, but it is the heart that begins our journey (“Were not our hearts burning within us…”) and it is the heart that helps us through the tough spots (“The greatest of these is love.”)
I totally believe we bring our head, heart and hands with us on the path of discipleship, and we need to use all three. But one is more likely to be able to be an exemplary Christian using only heart and hands than one who uses only head.
I think it’s a fair point how recent social sciences research has underscored the importance of emotion in making life decisions, and that people who are not emotionally aware often find making decisions agonizing and experience more regret for having made the wrong decision. It turns out that the head can take you only so far. If there are lessons in the abuse scandal, that might be the most important: sometimes your instinctive, emotional response to something really is the most important guidepost for action.
” We must rely upon reason and experience to make that choice. We must measure the teaching authority’s claims by reason and experience (a huge no-no). ”
James, I agree with you, and would say that the church, at her best anyway, would also agree with you. We *must* engage our reason and experience, along with our heart. But even these are not sufficient. There is conscience, and tradition, and revelation. Eric Stoltz gets at it in his recent comment, I think.
David N. – that is a great passage from Huckleberry Finn.
Regarding what Barbara says, there is a fascinating book called How We Decide by Jonah Lehrer. Brain imaging shows that decisions often come first, with reasons for them being supplied only later.
“The greatest of these is Love.” Long before Plato suggested that “the beginning is the most important part of the work”, God revealed to us the essence of Love:
“In The Beginning was The Word, and The Word Was With God, and The Word Was God…”
Love became Flesh and dwelt among us, and revealed to us, through His Life, His Passion, and His Death on The Cross, that Perfect Love is desiring Salvation for our Beloved. Only through Christ, can we know the essence of Love.
One of the real problems today and in this thread is the sacralization of the magisterium (3 legged stool) as a source of faith from JPII on.
Given the ordinary magisterium by definition is not infallible, this will continue to be an issue as folks try to make sense of their faith through their knowledge and experience.
This partcicular article and the Boulder incident underline the further tension between the rule and the pastoral perspeective as shaping how one approaches this.
My own view is (as I sy repeatedly) we are not in balance on these issues and I think the Vatican with its continued rightward lurch has created the imbalance.
“Do whatever He tells you.” Christ Has entrusted His Church with The Deposit of Faith.
Speaking of doing what Christ tells you, this article is about to appear now in the print issue and I wonder what the reaction will be.
Yesterday, we went to the new NM Museum of history – quite good and balanced for the history of New Mexico til it approaches statehood and choppy in the later exhibits (by the way, in 1890, when statehood was proposed here, the Church opposed it.)
Afterwards, we stopped at the Cathedral and purchased their DVD on the cathedral as a symbol of the history of the Church here :”El Corazon de Santa Fe.”
Not very positive by the way about Lamy and his role.
I bring all that up here because , while much of the movie centers on the building and its histroy, shining through is the current Cathedral rector, Msgr. Jerome (I’ll admit a priest I thoroughly like.)
In the past 7 year, membership in the parish has more than doubled under his leadership.
What’s relevant is that the centerpiece of the vision for the Church their is a deep faith rooted in prayer and worship, coupled with an equally deep respect for the community served and particulalry other Churches, and lastly, a strong appreciation for the variety of cultural traditions and frames that people bring, even if in the past they had been the source of angry and even violent division.
I thought all that relevant to the article here and how the Church (should be) about uniting us all in love through our pratyer/worship, but serving all outr brothers with deep respect for what each can bring to the table.