Holy Week, Ecce Homo, Ecce Us
Apr 3, 2012
Elizabeth Scalia
My intention with this column was to share some musings on the words of Pontius Pilate as he presented the tortured Jesus—the icon of “extreme humility”—to the crowd: “Ecce homo”; behold the man.
They have become my Holy Week lectio divina, those two words, prompting me again and again to see the people I observe through a broader lens, one that curves through the light-filled wounds of Christ. The tired mother impatiently tugging the hand of the even more tired little girl? Ecce homo: the put-upon Jesus, wondering where he can lay his head. The India-born priest struggling to make the love of God understood in his homily, then continuing with mass? Ecce homo: the Christ, still misunderstood by his own friends, offering a blessing and feeding a multitude. The teenage boy who slinks sullenly into the pew but ends up entering into the mass in a moving way? Ecce homo: Jesus in Gethsemane, preferring the cup to pass yet surrendering to God’s plan.
Ecce homo: Christ enjoying ecstatic welcome as he enters Jerusalem, only to be rejected, scorned, debased, and destroyed just a week later. Ecce all of us, for all of our triumphs contain the threat of annihilation, particularly if we cling to them too dearly, or believe that they will somehow exempt us from the great challenges and crucibles stationed along all of our roads, like so many sinkholes. Grasping too tightly to illusions of our own specialness can render us ill-equipped to withstand a sudden reversal of fortune, but then—if we can find the strength to consent to the unfathomable will of God—ecce homo, again: there is glory beyond our imaginings.
A pretty tidy lectio, no doubt. If all of our musings on Christ and human life could be so straight-forward and consoling, we would call contemplation a cakewalk.
But true contemplation is a challenge; its sweet allures eventually lead us deeper, forcing us to confront ever more difficult ideas, and to struggle through them, always with the goal of conformity to the mind and will of God, as much as it may be known.
One great challenge to Christian understanding—a matter that will force us into contemplative depths whether we want to swim them or not—is going to be unavoidable in 2012 and beyond: the issue of un-closeted homosexuals living with the church, working with the church, praying with the church, and ministering to the church in a manner so reconciled as to be unimaginable at the moment.
The Catholic church in Vienna is currently something of a hotbed of dissent; this week its Cardinal, Christoph Schönborn, overturned the decision of a priest who tried to unseat from his parish council a homosexual man living in civil union with another man. It is reported that Schönborn initially planned to support the priest but changed his mind, saying, “I ask myself in these situations: How did Jesus act? He first saw the human being.”
Noting the story, canon lawyer Edward Peters writes, “In the present case, cries of Götterdämmerung from the Right (and for that matter, triumphalist shouts from the Left) are premature.”
He is correct. We only just begun this walk. Christianity, particularly in America, is struggling with balance as it becomes ever more embroiled (willingly or not) in secular matters, but this will be a defining question: how do we follow the Christ’s example to “first see the human being” (ecce homo) while reconciling it with Matthew 19:3-5 and 11-12—words Jesus did not utter by accident?
No thinking Christian can claim perfect wisdom, especially on this emotion-tipping issue, here, but in his soon-to-be-released Bad Religion: How We Became a Nation of Heretics, New York Times columnist Ross Douthat offers a worthy inkling:
The Christian case for fidelity and chastity will inevitably seem partial and hypocritical if it trains most of its attention on the minority of cases—on homosexual wedlock and the slippery slope to polygamy beyond. It is the heterosexual divorce rate, the heterosexual retreat from marriage, and the heterosexual out-of-wedlock birthrate that should command the most attention from Christian moralists. The Christian perspective on gay sex only makes sense in light of the Christian perspective on straight sex, and in a culture that has made heterosexual desire the measure of all things, asking gays alone to conform their lives to a hard teaching will inevitably seem like a form of bigotry. . . . I have no easy answers to the question of how churches should minister to gays and lesbians in a post-closet age, and great sympathy for same-sex-attracted Christians who regard the traditional teaching as impossible. But it’s worth emphasizing that one reason the Christian insistence on chastity for homosexuals seems particularly cruel and unreasonable is that the Christian churches no longer successfully hold up heterosexual chastity as a clearly defined, successfully lived-out ideal.
Douthat’s thoughts here are a kind of dual prompting: a Christianity struggling to reconcile belief with inclusion will have to “get rid of the beam” in its own eye before it will clearly see how to deal with the splinters of human people seeking Christ. And to do that, the church will have to go back to the basics, re-learn them and then re-teach them, but this time not as narrow, fundamentalist do’s and dont’s that excuse us from thinking, but as the fundamentally sophisticated and paradoxical means toward true freedom that they really are.
We are heading into what Pope Benedict has declared will be a dedicated “Year of Faith,” a year meant to deepen our understanding of what the life of faith entails through a rediscovery of our earliest resources. Reorienting ourselves to these first-principles, we will be forced to prayerfully re-think how we may impart eternal, and often difficult-to-embrace truths about life, sex and love to an age whose instincts are inclined toward disposability, instant gratification and me-ism.
It is going to require our best efforts at contemplative awareness, prayer, and reason. And if you find that an unsettling thought for Holy Week, then contemplate this: all things are difficult, before they are easy, and there ain’t no resurrection at all, without the crucifixion, first.
Elizabeth Scalia is the Managing Editor of the Catholic Portal at Patheos and blogs as The Anchoress. Her previous articles for "On the Square" can be found here.
RESOURCES
Icon of Extreme Humility
Cardinal Schönborn in Vienna
A Canon Lawyer's Take
Jesus on Marriage and Divorce
Matthew 19:11-12
Matthew 7:5
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
4.3.2012 | 9:44am
Stephanos says:
Et tu, Elizabeth? Is this really the sore place where contemplation draws us in Holy Week 2012? Ecce homo, indeed.
4.3.2012 | 9:51am
patricksarsfield says:
The NY Times claim seemingly endorsed by the author--that "Christian churches" are hypocritical on homosexual sex since they don't enforce Christ's teaching on heterosexual Divorce/Remarriage--lumps all Christian Churches together. My Church (Christ's Holy Catholic Church) almost alone among Christian churches but larger than the rest of them combined, should not be lumped in with the others. It has stayed true to Christ's "hard teaching." Actually, of course, Christ's teaching is NOT hard. Commanding that love and regard for the other last a lifetime is a lot more loving than permitting people never to commit themnselves equally to the other.
Likewise for the two other heterosexualist hypocrisies pointed out by the NY Times: the retreat from heterosexual marriage and from the desideratum of in-wedlock births. The Catholic Teaching on those remains as it has been.
In all events, Christian churches should no more be lumped all together than members of a race or sex. Ms. Scalia then goes one step further and more confused than the NY Times and applies the Times argument to Christianity as a whole and then to "the church" in particular meaning the Church headed by the mentioned Pope Benedict....even though she should know that the Catholic Church does not disobey Christ on Divorce/Remarriage.
In truth, there is no reason to bring up all this extraneous stuff. The Catholic Teaching on sexuality has not been corrupted. Many people, particularly here in America, try to lump all sexual discussions into one so that every sexual sin ever committed weighs on one side and everybody who ever sinned (i.e., all of us) will line up on that side against "the Church." The way out of that slavery, though, is to admit that we are sinners and need the help of God and His Holy Church; it's good for the soul.
Likewise for the two other heterosexualist hypocrisies pointed out by the NY Times: the retreat from heterosexual marriage and from the desideratum of in-wedlock births. The Catholic Teaching on those remains as it has been.
In all events, Christian churches should no more be lumped all together than members of a race or sex. Ms. Scalia then goes one step further and more confused than the NY Times and applies the Times argument to Christianity as a whole and then to "the church" in particular meaning the Church headed by the mentioned Pope Benedict....even though she should know that the Catholic Church does not disobey Christ on Divorce/Remarriage.
In truth, there is no reason to bring up all this extraneous stuff. The Catholic Teaching on sexuality has not been corrupted. Many people, particularly here in America, try to lump all sexual discussions into one so that every sexual sin ever committed weighs on one side and everybody who ever sinned (i.e., all of us) will line up on that side against "the Church." The way out of that slavery, though, is to admit that we are sinners and need the help of God and His Holy Church; it's good for the soul.
4.3.2012 | 10:08am
SteveP says:
Elizabeth Scalia: I honestly do not comprehend your point. Are you suggesting that, upon seeing an “un-closeted homosexual” we should think of Jesus trying to ensure His Social Security benefits will be assigned to Peter?
4.3.2012 | 10:54am
Craig Roberts says:
The Church ignores divorce, unmarried co-habitation, and out-of-wedlock births? That's ridiculous. Will we also have to reconsider the morality of abortion because pornography is so common now?
4.3.2012 | 10:59am
Jose says:
Elizabeth this is a good way at looking at this explosive topic that on each side no one really wants to totally engage one another due to the "uncomfortable-ness" of it all. This is a perfect time for the Church and ALL its members to speak out on her teaching of sexuality an the inherent goodnessand importance that derives from it when used properly. I've had many conversations with family, friends, and acquantainces that if you hold a morally relativistic viewpoint towards sex in general; then you should eventually embrace the homosexual lifestyle as well based on this train of thought. We need to be living our lives in accordance on what we profess, believe, and preach as Catholics and that includes sexuality. Catholics needs to evangelize to the world why the Church's teaching on sex within the sacrament of marriage is good for the couples, families, and all society. Until then we'll be spinning wheels and more souls will be lost. Holy Week is a good time to reflect in general on how all us sinners can walk as the risen Christ did and transform the world.
4.3.2012 | 11:45am
Elizabeth Scalia says:
Stephanos, yes, this is the sore place my contemplation led me -- we are all there, in the wounds of Christ, and so are our difficulties with each other.
Patrick, I was not quoting the NY Times, but Ross Douthat's book, "Bad Religion" which looks at all of the Christian churches, not only the Catholic church, and it is self-evident that the mainline Protestant and Evangelical churches have become comfortable with divorce and less comfortable with the rigors of chastity; it is also true that while the Catholic church has not bent on these issues (and should not, b/c she teaches the truth) she has taught it so poorly that her children are divorcing, aborting, contracepting and so forth at the same rate as the rest of society. I'm sorry the column offended you and others, but the Catholic church must lead, here, and leadership moves beyond knee-jerkism; Jesus' teaching was firm, but it was tempered with love, and it was understandable. Our current age does not understand the church's teachings because there is a great deal of noise, that is true, but also because it has not been well-done in recent decades. Before the sexual revolution, the church was able to teach with a simplistic and heavy rod; we are in a sicker, but more "educated" time. People need to be challenged with intellectual and metaphysical instruction that goes beyond, "no, because we said so." To, "let us help you understand the profound "YES" that anchors all of what we teach. Cardinal Dolan is the guy to do that, btw.
Patrick, I was not quoting the NY Times, but Ross Douthat's book, "Bad Religion" which looks at all of the Christian churches, not only the Catholic church, and it is self-evident that the mainline Protestant and Evangelical churches have become comfortable with divorce and less comfortable with the rigors of chastity; it is also true that while the Catholic church has not bent on these issues (and should not, b/c she teaches the truth) she has taught it so poorly that her children are divorcing, aborting, contracepting and so forth at the same rate as the rest of society. I'm sorry the column offended you and others, but the Catholic church must lead, here, and leadership moves beyond knee-jerkism; Jesus' teaching was firm, but it was tempered with love, and it was understandable. Our current age does not understand the church's teachings because there is a great deal of noise, that is true, but also because it has not been well-done in recent decades. Before the sexual revolution, the church was able to teach with a simplistic and heavy rod; we are in a sicker, but more "educated" time. People need to be challenged with intellectual and metaphysical instruction that goes beyond, "no, because we said so." To, "let us help you understand the profound "YES" that anchors all of what we teach. Cardinal Dolan is the guy to do that, btw.
4.3.2012 | 12:10pm
Occum's Razor says:
Yes, let us go back to the basics. From the Catechism:
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law.
With all due respect, this is not complicated or nuanced. It is quite simple. We are coming out of 40 years of some of the worst catechesis the Church has ever known. What is needed now is simple clarity.
Homosexuality is a profound disorder. Gay "marriage" and "civil unions" are an abomination. We should love sinner but hate the sins. And any insinuation that the justified moral rejection of homosexuality is somehow a form of "hate" needs to be challenged every time it is brought up. And the Bishops and priests need to be making these points simply, clearly, and frequently from the pulpit and in the press.
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law.
With all due respect, this is not complicated or nuanced. It is quite simple. We are coming out of 40 years of some of the worst catechesis the Church has ever known. What is needed now is simple clarity.
Homosexuality is a profound disorder. Gay "marriage" and "civil unions" are an abomination. We should love sinner but hate the sins. And any insinuation that the justified moral rejection of homosexuality is somehow a form of "hate" needs to be challenged every time it is brought up. And the Bishops and priests need to be making these points simply, clearly, and frequently from the pulpit and in the press.
4.3.2012 | 12:32pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
Occum's Razor, I would argue that what is difficult -- what is NUANCED, sophisticated and not-easily taught and yet CRUCIAL is the rest of the story, that profound "YES" that resides within truth and obedience but can never be understood if it cannot be taught and received without the kneejerk, the emotional and the over-emphasis on "disorder." You may like the cut-and-dry "no" but it's not going to inform or convince or convert a heart to the truth; it is only going to foment resistance, and then people will never find the paradoxical freedom of "yes" in Christ. We will have to agree to disagree.
4.3.2012 | 1:33pm
tom in Ohio says:
Elizabeth, you seem to welcome a time when we will be, in your words, "reconciled" with the notion of un-closeted gays ministering in the Church. I am a fan of the Anchoress, but I find that sentiment to be most troubling, and certainly destructive if it becomes widely held. If it happens as you are predicting, and I pray it will not, it will not be something good or helpful, certainly not when you consider the example it makes for and to the young, but something so devastating that the Catholic Church's real teaching on human sexuality will be forever hidden from those who most need to know about it.
You seem to be saying that the hypocrisy of Christians, i.e. that many have not lived the Christian calling to lifelong marriage, somehow now in the 21st century disqualifies the Church from clearly teaching that the homosexual act is in "no way to be condoned".
You do know that pro-choicers argue the same way against the Catholic position, laying down the moral gauntlet by saying until we are prepared to take on all un-wanted children we have no moral standing to condemn abortion.
Likewise now, you seem to be saying that until all Christians perfectly live the Christian ideal of marriage, the Church has no grounds to condemn the homosexual act.
How perfect would the lives of all who try to follow Christ have to be before the Church would be allowed to speak clearly on the homosexual act?
Don't you see the trap you are laying?
You seem to think permissiveness will gain you an audience. It does not work in parenting and it doesn't work in real life either.
It's just not that easy.
I am indeed heartbroken, for you have been a help to me in my walk.
Tom in Ohio
You seem to be saying that the hypocrisy of Christians, i.e. that many have not lived the Christian calling to lifelong marriage, somehow now in the 21st century disqualifies the Church from clearly teaching that the homosexual act is in "no way to be condoned".
You do know that pro-choicers argue the same way against the Catholic position, laying down the moral gauntlet by saying until we are prepared to take on all un-wanted children we have no moral standing to condemn abortion.
Likewise now, you seem to be saying that until all Christians perfectly live the Christian ideal of marriage, the Church has no grounds to condemn the homosexual act.
How perfect would the lives of all who try to follow Christ have to be before the Church would be allowed to speak clearly on the homosexual act?
Don't you see the trap you are laying?
You seem to think permissiveness will gain you an audience. It does not work in parenting and it doesn't work in real life either.
It's just not that easy.
I am indeed heartbroken, for you have been a help to me in my walk.
Tom in Ohio
4.3.2012 | 1:43pm
Phillip says:
This reminds me of something that a non-Catholic (a Mormon to be specific) wrote about. In the context of the debate about gay marriage, the person in question asked a Catholic visitor to her college “Is a celibate priesthood the most persuasive advocate for heterosexual marriage?” To me the answer to that question would have to be yes. A celibate priest is exactly the person who can best ask someone with homosexual tendencies to abstain from homosexual sexual relations. They themselves have given up sexual fullfilment in order to more deeply serve their God, to conform themselves to God's will for them. They themselves should be a witness that, despite our sex-obssessed world's insistence on sexual expression as being a necessary condition for human happiness, that a full human life can be lived without sex. They are a living "sign of contradiction" to our modern culture.
4.3.2012 | 1:52pm
Elizabeth Scalia says:
Tom in Ohio, I am very sad to say this but you SEEM to be profoundly misreading me on every single point. You SEEM to be projecting thoughts that are in no way my own. I am calling for the church to return to its fundamentals and TEACH THEM BETTER, wade more deeply into their depths, because this generation will not follow any other way. I'm sorry for your grief, but I've said nothing to grieve you, and I hope you'll try re-reading me. Or read this: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/10/the-tolerance-disconnect
4.3.2012 | 2:05pm
Loreen Lee says:
Dear Father:
I went and read Matthew 3-5, and found that in my interpretation, it had nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather with the binding of individuals within a 'marriage', as though this unity, (indeed that is what was said, I believe) IS WHAT CONSTITUTE THE MARRIAGE, AS SACRED AND PERHAPS EVEN 'DIVINE'. iN OTHER WORDS THE ISSUE, TO MY MIND, IS INTEGRITY, OR PERHAPS EVEN 'HOLINESS'. It is the understanding of these 'basic concepts' that I find I have to struggle with, in order to as even you sayin, reinterpret the church 'dogma' (or sayings) in such a way that I do not feel the great 'paradoxes' of the church in relation to 'society'. I do have faith that these issues can be resolved, and that clearer distinctions can be made between legality, and spirituality, (or religion); state and church; ethics and personal morality (which is I believe what the Church withholds as where the Absolute resides. As Christ said: Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and to God that which belongs to God. I believe the challenge of the times is to define this distinction with respect to the above mentions dichotomies. Perhaps then new ways will be found to regulate and constute the 'eternal' truths of the Church.
I went and read Matthew 3-5, and found that in my interpretation, it had nothing to do with homosexuality, but rather with the binding of individuals within a 'marriage', as though this unity, (indeed that is what was said, I believe) IS WHAT CONSTITUTE THE MARRIAGE, AS SACRED AND PERHAPS EVEN 'DIVINE'. iN OTHER WORDS THE ISSUE, TO MY MIND, IS INTEGRITY, OR PERHAPS EVEN 'HOLINESS'. It is the understanding of these 'basic concepts' that I find I have to struggle with, in order to as even you sayin, reinterpret the church 'dogma' (or sayings) in such a way that I do not feel the great 'paradoxes' of the church in relation to 'society'. I do have faith that these issues can be resolved, and that clearer distinctions can be made between legality, and spirituality, (or religion); state and church; ethics and personal morality (which is I believe what the Church withholds as where the Absolute resides. As Christ said: Render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar and to God that which belongs to God. I believe the challenge of the times is to define this distinction with respect to the above mentions dichotomies. Perhaps then new ways will be found to regulate and constute the 'eternal' truths of the Church.
4.3.2012 | 2:16pm
Ray says:
When anyone begins by using the eastern effete media -New York Times, Douthat article- the case is lost. Use our Mother Church, the Magisterium, to deal with what we are to believe. Usually I like your work but this straw man concept you have drawn up here is over the top. Using the outlier data that you passed on to your audience is a bit over the top for me.
4.3.2012 | 2:20pm
Occum's Razor says:
"You may like the cut-and-dry "no" but it's not going to inform or convince or convert a heart to the truth; it is only going to foment resistance, and then people will never find the paradoxical freedom of "yes" in Christ. We will have to agree to disagree."
When the rich young man wanted to follow Our Lord, he was told point blankly to deny himself and to give up all that he most desired. Plain and simple. Our Lord did not mince his words. When the prostitute was saved from a death by stoning and forgiven of her sins she was also told to "go, and *sin no more*".
Is there ever a time or circumstance when homosexuality is NOT a profound disorder?
The answer is: No.
At the basis of the disorder is a profound narcissism, and pandering to that dysfunction is a fools game. What we have strayed too far from in this corrupt day and age is the necessity of tough love. You're clearly implying that Christian love should not involve passing judgment on a profoundly disordered action. That is exactly the atrocious catechises that has led us to this current state of confusion and despair in the first place.
I love my alcoholic sister, and because I love her I absolutely abhor her alcoholism. I will do anything I can to foster my love for her, but I will never foster a misguided love for her disorder. And I should never view her brokenness as an acceptable standard of living. Instead, I should help her aspire to resisting her disorder.
Do homosexuals deserve any less?
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household." ~ Matthew 10:34-36
When the rich young man wanted to follow Our Lord, he was told point blankly to deny himself and to give up all that he most desired. Plain and simple. Our Lord did not mince his words. When the prostitute was saved from a death by stoning and forgiven of her sins she was also told to "go, and *sin no more*".
Is there ever a time or circumstance when homosexuality is NOT a profound disorder?
The answer is: No.
At the basis of the disorder is a profound narcissism, and pandering to that dysfunction is a fools game. What we have strayed too far from in this corrupt day and age is the necessity of tough love. You're clearly implying that Christian love should not involve passing judgment on a profoundly disordered action. That is exactly the atrocious catechises that has led us to this current state of confusion and despair in the first place.
I love my alcoholic sister, and because I love her I absolutely abhor her alcoholism. I will do anything I can to foster my love for her, but I will never foster a misguided love for her disorder. And I should never view her brokenness as an acceptable standard of living. Instead, I should help her aspire to resisting her disorder.
Do homosexuals deserve any less?
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and one’s enemies will be those of his household." ~ Matthew 10:34-36
4.3.2012 | 2:37pm
Theophile says:
One point often missed about sin, is where most of us look at sin as separate from us in the sense that we can abstain or indulge in it. For the homosexual they identify with/as their sin. In scripture we learn that pride is the gateway sin to every other sin, it was Lucifer's sin, and Sodom's sin. When we see a gay parade, we don't have to look much further than it's name, "Pride", to know what we are dealing with, sin! That said, how many out there identify with You're sin?...Um..proud to be an American? or any other "nationality"? proud of You're accomplishments? the "crowd You're in or support? bank account, house, car, or You're kids? Just wondering.
4.3.2012 | 2:39pm
Loreen Lee says:
I also believe that the best way to teach is through example. So my primary objective is to understand scripture and the state of my own sinfulness. That recognition of one's failings is the most difficult to see often. How much easier is it to see the 'sinfulness' of the world, rather than the 'sinfulness' within one's own individual self. Of course, as an individual, I do not have the challenges that Church authories are faced with respect to preserving the ability to carry on as an institution. But I also believe that it is the more immediate challenge, for me at least, to 'live', rather than 'preach' a life of 'holiness'., and learn not to be critical of my friend and neighbor. (and enemy, be he homosexual or heterosexual!). That is my first priority. Thank you.
4.3.2012 | 2:40pm
Joey says:
A Progressive Translation of Genesis 19
The two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them, and they agreed to stay with him for the night. Not long after Lot's guests had eaten, the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old, surrounded the house. They called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may greet them in the way in which we are accustomed." Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." They replied, "Stand back!" And they pressed hard against Lot, moving in closer to break down the door. But Lot's guests, on hearing the ruckus, put out their hands, pulled Lot inside with them, and closed the door.
Having protected Lot, the guests asked themselves how would the Lord act? Surely he would see the men at the entrance of the house as human beings! After conversing with the men at the entrance of the house, the guests were impressed, and they agreed that the men were in the right place. Lot, however, was not of the same mind with them. Then the guests said to Lot: "We were about to destroy these people, but now realize that it is you who are the troublemaker."
As dawn was breaking, the angels urged Lot on, saying, "Take your wife with you and your two daughters who are here, or we will make you celebrate with us and the fine people of these cities." And so Lot, being an agreeable, but still judgmental sort of fellow, took his wife and daughters and left the city. And as they parted, the guests called out to them, "Do not look back or stop anywhere on the Plain. Flee to the hills at once, or you will be swept away in the excitement. And take care, that you not look back in judgment on any of the merrymaking that you may hear behind you."
The sun had risen over the earth when Lot arrived at his destination, and he heard a great roar of laughter behind him, and could see from the corner of his eye the faint arches of the fireworks that the guests used to entertain the people. Lot sighed remorsefully, but Lot's wife looked back in judgment, and she was turned into a pillar of salt.
The two angels reached Sodom in the evening, as Lot was sitting at the gate. When Lot saw them, he got up to greet them, and they agreed to stay with him for the night. Not long after Lot's guests had eaten, the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old, surrounded the house. They called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may greet them in the way in which we are accustomed." Lot went out to meet them at the entrance. When he had shut the door behind him, he said, "I beg you, my brothers, do not do this wicked thing, for they have come under the shelter of my roof." They replied, "Stand back!" And they pressed hard against Lot, moving in closer to break down the door. But Lot's guests, on hearing the ruckus, put out their hands, pulled Lot inside with them, and closed the door.
Having protected Lot, the guests asked themselves how would the Lord act? Surely he would see the men at the entrance of the house as human beings! After conversing with the men at the entrance of the house, the guests were impressed, and they agreed that the men were in the right place. Lot, however, was not of the same mind with them. Then the guests said to Lot: "We were about to destroy these people, but now realize that it is you who are the troublemaker."
As dawn was breaking, the angels urged Lot on, saying, "Take your wife with you and your two daughters who are here, or we will make you celebrate with us and the fine people of these cities." And so Lot, being an agreeable, but still judgmental sort of fellow, took his wife and daughters and left the city. And as they parted, the guests called out to them, "Do not look back or stop anywhere on the Plain. Flee to the hills at once, or you will be swept away in the excitement. And take care, that you not look back in judgment on any of the merrymaking that you may hear behind you."
The sun had risen over the earth when Lot arrived at his destination, and he heard a great roar of laughter behind him, and could see from the corner of his eye the faint arches of the fireworks that the guests used to entertain the people. Lot sighed remorsefully, but Lot's wife looked back in judgment, and she was turned into a pillar of salt.
4.3.2012 | 2:45pm
MacGabhann says:
Ms Scalia,
Most of us are not adept at metaphysics or subtle intellectualism and we appreciate bottom-line statements on what the Church teaches. This is not to say that the Church should not articulate her reasoning for her positions, but metaphysical reflection alone, without a clear, dogmatic formulation of her resulting positions would be much more confusing and debilitating in the long run. If the cost of her dogmatism opens her to being misrepresented as simplistic and heavy-handed then she should be obliged to just suck it up as her own ecce moment.
And what about some clarity from you? Do you agree with the cardinal not supporting his priest? Do you think that an openly practicing homosexual, one who intends to go on formally living in a state of sin, should be allowed to participate as an official of a Church body? Certainly, Jesus showed compassion to the prostitute, and refused to condemn her, but in the same breath he told her to sin no more. There is a price to non-condemnation, and we should always be clear about it, as Jesus was.
Most of us are not adept at metaphysics or subtle intellectualism and we appreciate bottom-line statements on what the Church teaches. This is not to say that the Church should not articulate her reasoning for her positions, but metaphysical reflection alone, without a clear, dogmatic formulation of her resulting positions would be much more confusing and debilitating in the long run. If the cost of her dogmatism opens her to being misrepresented as simplistic and heavy-handed then she should be obliged to just suck it up as her own ecce moment.
And what about some clarity from you? Do you agree with the cardinal not supporting his priest? Do you think that an openly practicing homosexual, one who intends to go on formally living in a state of sin, should be allowed to participate as an official of a Church body? Certainly, Jesus showed compassion to the prostitute, and refused to condemn her, but in the same breath he told her to sin no more. There is a price to non-condemnation, and we should always be clear about it, as Jesus was.
4.3.2012 | 3:23pm
Occum's Razor says:
The moral doctrines of The Catholic Church will never change. Nor should they, because they are based on the Truth of Natural Law and on our immortal relationship with The Divine.
The broken disorder of homosexuality is quite simple to understand. And that's the confusion here:
The truth about homosexuality is simple: It is wrong. Denying one's self the actions of that desire: is difficult. The result? Tough love through the discipline of self-denial.
This entire article is lacking the salient admission statement of Truth that is sorely needed in this current age:
Homosexuality is a sinfully disordered act. Period. That is an immovable timeless Truth that will always be true even as the changing fads of modern psychology and political opinion shift with the frivolous winds of the pop culture.
The broken disorder of homosexuality is quite simple to understand. And that's the confusion here:
The truth about homosexuality is simple: It is wrong. Denying one's self the actions of that desire: is difficult. The result? Tough love through the discipline of self-denial.
This entire article is lacking the salient admission statement of Truth that is sorely needed in this current age:
Homosexuality is a sinfully disordered act. Period. That is an immovable timeless Truth that will always be true even as the changing fads of modern psychology and political opinion shift with the frivolous winds of the pop culture.
4.3.2012 | 3:25pm
Thomas Murray says:
Don Roberto: Regarding the idea that homosexuality is "learned", that may be true for some, but for others there has been some scientific evidence that it may be biological. Some studies have shown that some homosexual men have brain structures found in women that are not found in heterosexual men. It may be some time before we fully grasp all the factors that are involved here. That being said, the indoctrination of our culture in general, and our children in particular, is something to be resisted.
Elizabeth: While I am profoundly against homosexual "marriage", and the cram it down our throats "tolerance" talk, which is anything but tolerant, I am at a loss as to how we as Catholics should approach our homosexual brothers and sisters. Certainly we are not to ostracize them, or send them off to the modern equivalent of a leper colony. How best to engage them (the heavily politicized advocates are perhaps beyond the pale) as Christians, in order to live as Jesus would have us live? If a man's brain is wired such that he is attracted to men, is that the same as one who has chosen to join the "gay lifestyle"? I think not. And, not being able to do a brain scan on every homosexual I meet, is it just to give the individual the benefit of the doubt? This does not imply approval, as the advocates would have us do. It does imply a certain level of acceptance. Jesus accepted sinners, only asking that they sin no more. Are we to proclaim a double standard that while we may "accept" a person's homosexuality, we ask that they not engage in homosexual sexual acts, but we do not ask heterosexual folks to refrain from sex out of wedlock? Your suggestion that we go back to the basics and start our teaching anew is perhaps a start, but until we can come to grips with this fundamental question, that effort may not bear fruit.
Elizabeth: While I am profoundly against homosexual "marriage", and the cram it down our throats "tolerance" talk, which is anything but tolerant, I am at a loss as to how we as Catholics should approach our homosexual brothers and sisters. Certainly we are not to ostracize them, or send them off to the modern equivalent of a leper colony. How best to engage them (the heavily politicized advocates are perhaps beyond the pale) as Christians, in order to live as Jesus would have us live? If a man's brain is wired such that he is attracted to men, is that the same as one who has chosen to join the "gay lifestyle"? I think not. And, not being able to do a brain scan on every homosexual I meet, is it just to give the individual the benefit of the doubt? This does not imply approval, as the advocates would have us do. It does imply a certain level of acceptance. Jesus accepted sinners, only asking that they sin no more. Are we to proclaim a double standard that while we may "accept" a person's homosexuality, we ask that they not engage in homosexual sexual acts, but we do not ask heterosexual folks to refrain from sex out of wedlock? Your suggestion that we go back to the basics and start our teaching anew is perhaps a start, but until we can come to grips with this fundamental question, that effort may not bear fruit.
4.3.2012 | 3:27pm
Loreen Lee says:
With respect to homosexuality, would someone please give a quotation of the places in scripture that are directed to this question.
Is 'sin' necessarily equated with 'psychological health' or 'mental illness', which is the reason why medicine has reclassified the phenomenon.
I have a story:
When my son was in his early teens, one of my tenants, I believed incorrectly, was involved in convincing him to be a homosexual likie himself. At one point, I reacted, (what I have recently confessed as a sin, by the way, and is the reason that I attempt not to come too readily to 'pass judgment') got a little 'angry' to say the least, and my son stepped in and put an end to the situation.
Years later, he said, "Mom" what were you doing. I knew even back then that I was not going to be a homosexual." He was no speaking as a doctor, and explained to me the medical perspective on the issue.
Is sin, to be equated, once again with mental illness.
In my story, I point out, how indeed, criticism, and reaction, can be, to my mind, considered sinful. Nothing 'positive' is necessarily accomplished.
In the case, of Jesus, he has said Sin No More after, in the case of the man with the legions, he has expelled the bad spirits of 'mental health. In the case of the the woman who was to be stoned, he has stopped thiis from happening.
That seems to be, to my mind, Jesus's priority. When does he ever condemn ' before the fact'. Criticism does not necessarily, indeed generally can escalate the 'problem, make things 'better'. The message of Christ is salvation, not punishment in an ipso facto, sort of way. This is my belief as a Christian. Please correct my interpretation, if it is wrong or shallow.
Again, Please give me the quotes from scripture, I would sincerely like to consider this problematic in that context. Thank you.
Is 'sin' necessarily equated with 'psychological health' or 'mental illness', which is the reason why medicine has reclassified the phenomenon.
I have a story:
When my son was in his early teens, one of my tenants, I believed incorrectly, was involved in convincing him to be a homosexual likie himself. At one point, I reacted, (what I have recently confessed as a sin, by the way, and is the reason that I attempt not to come too readily to 'pass judgment') got a little 'angry' to say the least, and my son stepped in and put an end to the situation.
Years later, he said, "Mom" what were you doing. I knew even back then that I was not going to be a homosexual." He was no speaking as a doctor, and explained to me the medical perspective on the issue.
Is sin, to be equated, once again with mental illness.
In my story, I point out, how indeed, criticism, and reaction, can be, to my mind, considered sinful. Nothing 'positive' is necessarily accomplished.
In the case, of Jesus, he has said Sin No More after, in the case of the man with the legions, he has expelled the bad spirits of 'mental health. In the case of the the woman who was to be stoned, he has stopped thiis from happening.
That seems to be, to my mind, Jesus's priority. When does he ever condemn ' before the fact'. Criticism does not necessarily, indeed generally can escalate the 'problem, make things 'better'. The message of Christ is salvation, not punishment in an ipso facto, sort of way. This is my belief as a Christian. Please correct my interpretation, if it is wrong or shallow.
Again, Please give me the quotes from scripture, I would sincerely like to consider this problematic in that context. Thank you.
4.3.2012 | 3:30pm
Gail Finke says:
I think we need both the simple "No -- because I said so!" AND the complex, deep teachings. People need to understand that there really is a NO, and that we really mean it. This in itself is a hard lesson for many people, who really do believe that at most you can say, "most of the time the answer is no but of course there are hard cases..." You have to have the complex and deep argument so that people don't think we stop at "No," and the clear, unambiguous "No" for the people who don't think could ever possibly mean it. ("No abortion -- even in the case of rape or incest. Really. It makes a sad situation even sadder." "No homosexual actions, even if people say they are in love and committed to each other and have had really unhappy lives and are lonely. Really. It makes a sad situation even sadder.") I think you've hit a nerve here Elizabeth precisely because you're right. We really have done a bad job teaching this stuff.
4.3.2012 | 3:31pm
harry says:
Hello, Elizabeth and Occum's Razor,
Elizabeth wrote:
“Occum's Razor, I would argue that what is difficult -- what is NUANCED, sophisticated and not-easily taught and yet CRUCIAL is the rest of the story, that profound "YES" that resides within truth and obedience but can never be understood if it cannot be taught and received without the kneejerk, the emotional and the over-emphasis on "disorder." You may like the cut-and-dry "no" but it's not going to inform or convince or convert a heart to the truth; it is only going to foment resistance, and then people will never find the paradoxical freedom of "yes" in Christ. We will have to agree to disagree.”
Pointing out the fact – and it is a fact – that homosexuality is a disorder can be and is done by very well by the Church without “the kneejerk, the emotional and over-emphasis on 'disorder.'” The Church has an obligation to do just that. Humans are subject to various afflictions that come about naturally, and when homosexuality is not something one chose to learn nor caused by an environment one had no choice about growing up in, then it is such an affliction. And when it is an affliction one had no choice about, just as one has no choice about having Cystic Fibrosis or Sickle Cell Anemia, it is still a disorder. That is the truth and the Church must charitably teach the truth about not only that but about all of God's plan for human sexuality, and teach as well that naturally occurring disorders are in some mysterious way in God's plan:
“Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the LORD? … Neither this man nor his parents sinned … but this happened [the man being born blind] so that the works of God might be displayed in him.”
The Church and its members should expect the works of God to be displayed in those who struggle with unchosen homosexuality as they deal with that affliction chastely and virtuously, as it should expect the works of God to be mightily displayed in those whose choices brought them their current affliction as His grace brings them healing.
Actions speak much louder than words. I am afraid Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, in overturning the decision of a priest who tried to unseat from his parish council a homosexual man living in civil union with another man, loudly taught that which is not true – not because the man was a homosexual – we should treat homosexuals the with the profound charity and respect we would treat anyone who struggles with an affliction and welcome them in our churches, expecting the works of God to be displayed through them. He taught error because by his action he further legitimized homosexual fornication, which is, just like heterosexual fornication and adultery, a serious sin.
If a man was frequently committing adultery and everybody in the parish knew about it, and he often went from his girlfriend's house to take his place as a member of the parish council at its meetings, should the parish priest unseat him? If one openly and blatantly, such that everybody knows about it, seriously violates God's commands regarding human sexuality, even if the popular culture considers keeping those commands silly scrupulosity, we should be able to expect the Church, to avoid loudly teaching error by its actions and its inaction, to unseat such a one from the parish council and deny him the Eucharist.
Clerics who teach error by actions or inaction are letting the world evangelize their flocks instead of training their flocks to evangelizing the world. They are loudly teaching errors, not the least of which is that our living according to the Gospel can be reconciled with the world and its values. Christ made it clear we would be in conflict with the world. Such clerics will one day regret teaching error, for it causes Christ's lambs to stumble:
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! … If anyone causes one of these little ones – those who believe in me – to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
Elizabeth wrote:
“Occum's Razor, I would argue that what is difficult -- what is NUANCED, sophisticated and not-easily taught and yet CRUCIAL is the rest of the story, that profound "YES" that resides within truth and obedience but can never be understood if it cannot be taught and received without the kneejerk, the emotional and the over-emphasis on "disorder." You may like the cut-and-dry "no" but it's not going to inform or convince or convert a heart to the truth; it is only going to foment resistance, and then people will never find the paradoxical freedom of "yes" in Christ. We will have to agree to disagree.”
Pointing out the fact – and it is a fact – that homosexuality is a disorder can be and is done by very well by the Church without “the kneejerk, the emotional and over-emphasis on 'disorder.'” The Church has an obligation to do just that. Humans are subject to various afflictions that come about naturally, and when homosexuality is not something one chose to learn nor caused by an environment one had no choice about growing up in, then it is such an affliction. And when it is an affliction one had no choice about, just as one has no choice about having Cystic Fibrosis or Sickle Cell Anemia, it is still a disorder. That is the truth and the Church must charitably teach the truth about not only that but about all of God's plan for human sexuality, and teach as well that naturally occurring disorders are in some mysterious way in God's plan:
“Who gave human beings their mouths? Who makes them deaf or mute? Who gives them sight or makes them blind? Is it not I, the LORD? … Neither this man nor his parents sinned … but this happened [the man being born blind] so that the works of God might be displayed in him.”
The Church and its members should expect the works of God to be displayed in those who struggle with unchosen homosexuality as they deal with that affliction chastely and virtuously, as it should expect the works of God to be mightily displayed in those whose choices brought them their current affliction as His grace brings them healing.
Actions speak much louder than words. I am afraid Christoph Cardinal Schönborn, in overturning the decision of a priest who tried to unseat from his parish council a homosexual man living in civil union with another man, loudly taught that which is not true – not because the man was a homosexual – we should treat homosexuals the with the profound charity and respect we would treat anyone who struggles with an affliction and welcome them in our churches, expecting the works of God to be displayed through them. He taught error because by his action he further legitimized homosexual fornication, which is, just like heterosexual fornication and adultery, a serious sin.
If a man was frequently committing adultery and everybody in the parish knew about it, and he often went from his girlfriend's house to take his place as a member of the parish council at its meetings, should the parish priest unseat him? If one openly and blatantly, such that everybody knows about it, seriously violates God's commands regarding human sexuality, even if the popular culture considers keeping those commands silly scrupulosity, we should be able to expect the Church, to avoid loudly teaching error by its actions and its inaction, to unseat such a one from the parish council and deny him the Eucharist.
Clerics who teach error by actions or inaction are letting the world evangelize their flocks instead of training their flocks to evangelizing the world. They are loudly teaching errors, not the least of which is that our living according to the Gospel can be reconciled with the world and its values. Christ made it clear we would be in conflict with the world. Such clerics will one day regret teaching error, for it causes Christ's lambs to stumble:
“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! … If anyone causes one of these little ones – those who believe in me – to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
4.3.2012 | 3:59pm
Mick Leahy says:
He may be a great prince of The Church, but the Cardinal is wrong, and his humble priest right. The teaching of the Church is plain and clear: all sexual activity outside the marriage of a man and a woman is illicit, and even within lawful marriage it is required to be respectful, loving and open to life. Of course, we are all sinners, but for this homosexual couple to openly challenge the teaching of their Church is not acceptable.
I would like to opine my view of this so-called 'homosexual identity', of which much is made, to the degree that if one challenges this behaviour, one is tantamount to jeopardising their very identity-I believe it an invention, there is no homosexual identity no more than there is an adulterer's identity, or a paedophile identity, or a polygamist's identity. One knows these people solely by their actions.
I would like to opine my view of this so-called 'homosexual identity', of which much is made, to the degree that if one challenges this behaviour, one is tantamount to jeopardising their very identity-I believe it an invention, there is no homosexual identity no more than there is an adulterer's identity, or a paedophile identity, or a polygamist's identity. One knows these people solely by their actions.
4.3.2012 | 4:46pm
Loreen Lee says:
Firstly, I totally agree with the comment that any sinful action should be contested if it is an action taken with knowledge, to openly 'challenge the teachng of the Church'. Yes that necessarily has to remain the firm line, that cannot be crossed.
But, is it not in conflict, with what was stated earlier that the Chruch may be (in need) in the process of examining the 'fine points', with respect to certain issues, in this case 'mental health'.
Please know that I am stating these opinions for the purpose of developing my understanding; that I was subject to the stigma of PTSD, and schizophrenia, and indeed suffered grain pain, angst, feeling myself in such a state of sin, that I was 'unworthy'.
I am merely stating this point with reference to the term 'identity': for I believe it is possible for one's psychological condition to be considered by an individual to be one's 'identity'. But then the church is a church of transformation, and of 'eternal'resurrection. As a person with a psychological disorder, I experienced going through many 'identities'. The point of the church for me is that there still remains the need for me to work towards developing into my 'true idenhtity' if I can use that word again: that is the Person(hood?) represented as God, as a unity known as the Tripartite God of Christianity.
All I am aware of is that my 'reactions' can be 'uncharitable'. Thank you for allowing me to express myself. I fully agree that it would be most 'sinful' of me to flagrately (is this the right word) justify my sinful behavior by brazenly 'acting it out'. But indeed is this not done?
I read on M. Pope's blog the reminder that 'tolerance' is not 'acceptance'.
The question for me is how to go about, as an individual, standing up 'for what is right' in a wqy that is not 'judgeental', and particularly 'uncharitable'. I agree with the priest, but I wonder if the Bishop feels that the needed action may be able to be taken in a more 'disciplined' manner; through the 'obedience' of listening for God's word; and thus the possibility of approaching the issue on the level of inner reflection for all parties involved, rather than through 'another' 'external' demonstration; that is, privately, rather than 'publically', which is what 'confession' to my mind, is all about. Thank you. Have to stop this, the ego's showing!!!!!
But, is it not in conflict, with what was stated earlier that the Chruch may be (in need) in the process of examining the 'fine points', with respect to certain issues, in this case 'mental health'.
Please know that I am stating these opinions for the purpose of developing my understanding; that I was subject to the stigma of PTSD, and schizophrenia, and indeed suffered grain pain, angst, feeling myself in such a state of sin, that I was 'unworthy'.
I am merely stating this point with reference to the term 'identity': for I believe it is possible for one's psychological condition to be considered by an individual to be one's 'identity'. But then the church is a church of transformation, and of 'eternal'resurrection. As a person with a psychological disorder, I experienced going through many 'identities'. The point of the church for me is that there still remains the need for me to work towards developing into my 'true idenhtity' if I can use that word again: that is the Person(hood?) represented as God, as a unity known as the Tripartite God of Christianity.
All I am aware of is that my 'reactions' can be 'uncharitable'. Thank you for allowing me to express myself. I fully agree that it would be most 'sinful' of me to flagrately (is this the right word) justify my sinful behavior by brazenly 'acting it out'. But indeed is this not done?
I read on M. Pope's blog the reminder that 'tolerance' is not 'acceptance'.
The question for me is how to go about, as an individual, standing up 'for what is right' in a wqy that is not 'judgeental', and particularly 'uncharitable'. I agree with the priest, but I wonder if the Bishop feels that the needed action may be able to be taken in a more 'disciplined' manner; through the 'obedience' of listening for God's word; and thus the possibility of approaching the issue on the level of inner reflection for all parties involved, rather than through 'another' 'external' demonstration; that is, privately, rather than 'publically', which is what 'confession' to my mind, is all about. Thank you. Have to stop this, the ego's showing!!!!!
4.3.2012 | 4:55pm
Howard says:
There is a difference between crying Götterdämmerung and crying Schönborndämmerung. To state that "[t]he Catholic [C]hurch in Vienna is currently something of a hotbed of dissent" and that the Catholic Church in Vienna is headed by Cardinal Schönborn, as though the two statements have nothing to do with each other, seems ... premature, at best. He's the skipper of that ship, and he'll have to give an accounting to the Owner as to why it ended up on the rocks.
4.3.2012 | 5:01pm
J. Peter Nixon says:
Bravo to Elizabeth for raising an important and difficult issue. Gay men and lesbians have, of course, been ministering in the Church for centuries. Like many of us, they have had to live in a zone of tension between the Church’s public teaching and its private accommodation.
To suggest that speaking the words of the Catechism loudly and more forcefully is an adequate response to this challenge would be laughable if the consequences for the Church’s ability to engage the broader culture were not so serious. “Natural Law” is something far deeper than the syllogistic application of Kantian maxims. It is a deep commitment to understand the natural foundations of human flourishing, one that we apprehend not only through abstract analysis but also through lived experience and observation.
Alcoholism runs in my family and I do not need the Catechism to teach me how destructive it can be. It means a life full of self-loathing and continuous disappointment, a life of damaged and broken relationships, and ultimately a life that falls short of its promise.
I have known many gay men and lesbians who have felt this way at points in their life. For the overwhelmingly majority, however, these feelings date from a time before they acknowledged the truth of their sexuality and tried—hard but unsuccessfully—to live as something else. Many are in relationships that any observer can see are deeply life-giving. In some cases, those relationships have literally saved their lives. A concept of natural law that cannot acknowledge the truth of this is one that is deeply impoverished.
I agree with Elizabeth that is difficult to imagine how precisely we can reconcile this lived reality with the Church’s traditional teaching. But if we believe that truth is one and that—as Pope Benedict has said repeatedly—faith and reason must ultimately cohere, we should be willing to both pray for such a reconciliation and witness to it in our daily lives.
To suggest that speaking the words of the Catechism loudly and more forcefully is an adequate response to this challenge would be laughable if the consequences for the Church’s ability to engage the broader culture were not so serious. “Natural Law” is something far deeper than the syllogistic application of Kantian maxims. It is a deep commitment to understand the natural foundations of human flourishing, one that we apprehend not only through abstract analysis but also through lived experience and observation.
Alcoholism runs in my family and I do not need the Catechism to teach me how destructive it can be. It means a life full of self-loathing and continuous disappointment, a life of damaged and broken relationships, and ultimately a life that falls short of its promise.
I have known many gay men and lesbians who have felt this way at points in their life. For the overwhelmingly majority, however, these feelings date from a time before they acknowledged the truth of their sexuality and tried—hard but unsuccessfully—to live as something else. Many are in relationships that any observer can see are deeply life-giving. In some cases, those relationships have literally saved their lives. A concept of natural law that cannot acknowledge the truth of this is one that is deeply impoverished.
I agree with Elizabeth that is difficult to imagine how precisely we can reconcile this lived reality with the Church’s traditional teaching. But if we believe that truth is one and that—as Pope Benedict has said repeatedly—faith and reason must ultimately cohere, we should be willing to both pray for such a reconciliation and witness to it in our daily lives.
4.3.2012 | 7:13pm
Jimthru says:
I think what bothers me the most about your comment is that you treat homosexuality as something that is fixed and unchangeable. I don't think you get it. I don't think you can see that you don't get it. As a former homosexual and (thank you Jesus) now a heterosexual, I can truly say that the sins of my parents - there selfish unloving behavior - led me down the wrong path. Now I truly know what it means that Christ took my SHAME. AMAZING GRACE!!! I love seeing my fellow man as only my brothers. I love being attracted to women! And thank God there was a loving therapist who diligently showed me the way - such a long road and a heavy Cross to bear when the world won't listen to you.
Please check out the NARTH website and Joseph Nicolosi (who is a Catholic!)
Once you truly understand homosexuality, you won't think gay or lesbian. You will think, "there is a man/woman who didn't get the love from their parents that they so desperately needed (and deserved)!
Please check out the NARTH website and Joseph Nicolosi (who is a Catholic!)
Once you truly understand homosexuality, you won't think gay or lesbian. You will think, "there is a man/woman who didn't get the love from their parents that they so desperately needed (and deserved)!
4.3.2012 | 7:17pm
MacGabhann says:
@J.Peter Nixon
"Many are in relationships that any observer can see are deeply life-giving. In some cases, those relationships have literally saved their lives. A concept of natural law that cannot acknowledge the truth of this is one that is deeply impoverished."
The gods of the pagans were natural gods and their measure of truth was a natural measure. The God of Christians is a supernatural God and their measure of truth is a supernatural measure. For Christians, the unnatural death of a man on a cross was "deeply life-giving" even though many "literally" lost their natural lives proclaiming it. For Christians, natural afflications such as being born blind or homosexual are seen as opportunities for receiving grace to live a life that is eternally affirming.
"Many are in relationships that any observer can see are deeply life-giving. In some cases, those relationships have literally saved their lives. A concept of natural law that cannot acknowledge the truth of this is one that is deeply impoverished."
The gods of the pagans were natural gods and their measure of truth was a natural measure. The God of Christians is a supernatural God and their measure of truth is a supernatural measure. For Christians, the unnatural death of a man on a cross was "deeply life-giving" even though many "literally" lost their natural lives proclaiming it. For Christians, natural afflications such as being born blind or homosexual are seen as opportunities for receiving grace to live a life that is eternally affirming.
4.3.2012 | 7:30pm
patricksarsfield says:
Responding to me, Ms. Scalia writes:
"it is also true that while the Catholic church has not bent on these issues (and should not, b/c she teaches the truth) she has taught it so poorly that her children are divorcing, aborting, contracepting and so forth at the same rate as the rest of society. "
I'm sorry, I went through the teaching. I have always known the position of Christ and His Church on Divorce/Remarriage, in-wedlock births and heterosexual marriage, as well as its positions on abortion and contraception. Most people have been very well aware of the teachings even if they chose not to follow them. Thus, "the fault, dear Elizabeth, lies not in the Church but in ourselves." The whole approach Ms. Scalia is taking is confusing and confused.
"it is also true that while the Catholic church has not bent on these issues (and should not, b/c she teaches the truth) she has taught it so poorly that her children are divorcing, aborting, contracepting and so forth at the same rate as the rest of society. "
I'm sorry, I went through the teaching. I have always known the position of Christ and His Church on Divorce/Remarriage, in-wedlock births and heterosexual marriage, as well as its positions on abortion and contraception. Most people have been very well aware of the teachings even if they chose not to follow them. Thus, "the fault, dear Elizabeth, lies not in the Church but in ourselves." The whole approach Ms. Scalia is taking is confusing and confused.
4.3.2012 | 7:32pm
David Nickol says:
Pope John Paul II said:
************
Pastors, especially parish priests, must with an open heart guide and support these men and women, making them understand that even when they have broken the marriage bond, they must not despair of the grace of God, who watches over their way. The Church does not cease to "invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways ... until such time as they have attained the required dispositions" (Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, n. 34). Pastors "are called to help them experience the charity of Christ and the maternal closeness of the Church, receiving them with love, exhorting them to trust in God's mercy and suggesting, with prudence and respect, concrete ways of conversion and participation in the life of the community of the Church" (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful, 14 September 1994, n. 2). The Lord, moved by mercy, reaches out to all the needy, with both the demand for truth and the oil of charity. . . .
When a couple in an irregular situation returns to Christian practice, it is necessary to welcome them with charity and kindness, helping them to clarify their concrete status by means of enlightened and enlightening pastoral care. This apostolate of fraternal and evangelical welcome towards those who have lost contact with the Church is of great importance: it is the first step required to integrate them into Christian practice. It is necessary to introduce them to listening to the word of God and to prayer, to involve them in the charitable works of the Christian community for the poor and needy, and to awaken the spirit of repentance by acts of penance that prepare their hearts to accept God’s grace.
*************
He was speaking of the divorced and remarried, but why shouldn't the same hold for single gay people or those in same-sex relationships?
************
Pastors, especially parish priests, must with an open heart guide and support these men and women, making them understand that even when they have broken the marriage bond, they must not despair of the grace of God, who watches over their way. The Church does not cease to "invite her children who find themselves in these painful situations to approach the divine mercy by other ways ... until such time as they have attained the required dispositions" (Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, n. 34). Pastors "are called to help them experience the charity of Christ and the maternal closeness of the Church, receiving them with love, exhorting them to trust in God's mercy and suggesting, with prudence and respect, concrete ways of conversion and participation in the life of the community of the Church" (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church concerning the Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful, 14 September 1994, n. 2). The Lord, moved by mercy, reaches out to all the needy, with both the demand for truth and the oil of charity. . . .
When a couple in an irregular situation returns to Christian practice, it is necessary to welcome them with charity and kindness, helping them to clarify their concrete status by means of enlightened and enlightening pastoral care. This apostolate of fraternal and evangelical welcome towards those who have lost contact with the Church is of great importance: it is the first step required to integrate them into Christian practice. It is necessary to introduce them to listening to the word of God and to prayer, to involve them in the charitable works of the Christian community for the poor and needy, and to awaken the spirit of repentance by acts of penance that prepare their hearts to accept God’s grace.
*************
He was speaking of the divorced and remarried, but why shouldn't the same hold for single gay people or those in same-sex relationships?
4.3.2012 | 7:40pm
Lonely Voice says:
"He saw first the human being". Elizabeth, this is so true! Of course gay and lesbian couples desire and deserve to hold places of regard and authority in our parish councils. It may be a long, hard road but eventually, this kind of acceptance will come. Why? Because of the children. Many of these differently loving couples decide to bring children into their homes--which is more than can be said of the many childless-by-choice heterosexuals. It is unbearable to think that these children should suffer because the Catholic adults in question cannot extend the most basic loving act of seeing "first the human being" in these brave parents.
4.3.2012 | 8:10pm
The Moz says:
Good job Scalia!
You're not attacking the truth the Church teaches, you're simply pointing out that unless it picks it up at home first, it will not stand a chance against the secularist behemoth bearing down on it. Amen.
The truth about this particular sexual proclivity is true becuase it is true not because some Church even the RCC said so. If this were not the case western prohibitions would be apparitions not the dominant ethos everywhere everytime.
Faithful Catholics have to start at home, read more First Things and watch less smut. It's hard, but we have to set the example. Stay married, have children, fight the good fight. Not for yourself or even for your spouse but for God, for his glory. And, do not despair at the increase in the forces of darkness for you have mistaken the hour of the night! It is almost dawn!
You're not attacking the truth the Church teaches, you're simply pointing out that unless it picks it up at home first, it will not stand a chance against the secularist behemoth bearing down on it. Amen.
The truth about this particular sexual proclivity is true becuase it is true not because some Church even the RCC said so. If this were not the case western prohibitions would be apparitions not the dominant ethos everywhere everytime.
Faithful Catholics have to start at home, read more First Things and watch less smut. It's hard, but we have to set the example. Stay married, have children, fight the good fight. Not for yourself or even for your spouse but for God, for his glory. And, do not despair at the increase in the forces of darkness for you have mistaken the hour of the night! It is almost dawn!
4.3.2012 | 8:15pm
Frank Gibbons says:
Ms. Scalia,
You wrote that "People need to be challenged with intellectual and metaphysical instruction that goes beyond, "no, because we said so."
I concur that a return to a metaphysics would assist in presenting the Faith in a richer and more coherent manner. In Fides et Ratio, Pope John Paul II implores philosophers and theologians to undergird their studies with a broad-based metaphysics. I have recently read Fides et Ratio three times and am struck at the Pope's insistence on the need for metaphysical study. Kant (and other philosophers) who "turn[ed] to the subject" decried metaphysics and it's not very fashionable today. Kant was a major influence on twentieth century theology (Rahner attempted to reconcile Aquinas with Kant.) Metaphysics asks ultimate questions and synthesizes knowledge from many disparate disciplines. However, it does not start with the subject (with the primacy of the subjective) and is consequently threatening to many contemporary thinkers. But as Father Benedict Ashley, O.P. points out, the philosopher (the lover of wisdom) must begin his journey to the truth from reality as it is, not as he imagines it to be or as he wants it to be. And, as Father Ashley also says, when we work close to reality we become close to God who made that reality.
You wrote that "People need to be challenged with intellectual and metaphysical instruction that goes beyond, "no, because we said so."
I concur that a return to a metaphysics would assist in presenting the Faith in a richer and more coherent manner. In Fides et Ratio, Pope John Paul II implores philosophers and theologians to undergird their studies with a broad-based metaphysics. I have recently read Fides et Ratio three times and am struck at the Pope's insistence on the need for metaphysical study. Kant (and other philosophers) who "turn[ed] to the subject" decried metaphysics and it's not very fashionable today. Kant was a major influence on twentieth century theology (Rahner attempted to reconcile Aquinas with Kant.) Metaphysics asks ultimate questions and synthesizes knowledge from many disparate disciplines. However, it does not start with the subject (with the primacy of the subjective) and is consequently threatening to many contemporary thinkers. But as Father Benedict Ashley, O.P. points out, the philosopher (the lover of wisdom) must begin his journey to the truth from reality as it is, not as he imagines it to be or as he wants it to be. And, as Father Ashley also says, when we work close to reality we become close to God who made that reality.
4.3.2012 | 9:14pm
tom in ohio says:
I can read. And what you say is clear.
You write: "One great challenge to Christian understanding is going to be unavoidable --the issue of un-closeted homosexuals living with the church, working with the church, praying with the church, and ministering to the church in a manner so reconciled as to be unimaginable at the moment."
What you are saying, if true, is devastating. That is my point. You are painting a picture in which the homosexual act (un-closeted) is condoned. All the various shades of love the sinner but hate the sin and all the various ways of answering the perennial WWJD question, take all that as you will; this remains--condoning the homosexual act is a line we cannot cross.
Lastly, I am surprised that you would answer so sarcastically. I use "you seem to be saying" instead of "you say" as a sort of polite buffer, to acknowledge I may have misunderstood. It is used here with absolutely no disrespect intended.
I remain deeply perplexed. I read your other piece you recommended and that makes sense to me. The one I am responding to does not.
respectfully
tom in Ohio
You write: "One great challenge to Christian understanding is going to be unavoidable --the issue of un-closeted homosexuals living with the church, working with the church, praying with the church, and ministering to the church in a manner so reconciled as to be unimaginable at the moment."
What you are saying, if true, is devastating. That is my point. You are painting a picture in which the homosexual act (un-closeted) is condoned. All the various shades of love the sinner but hate the sin and all the various ways of answering the perennial WWJD question, take all that as you will; this remains--condoning the homosexual act is a line we cannot cross.
Lastly, I am surprised that you would answer so sarcastically. I use "you seem to be saying" instead of "you say" as a sort of polite buffer, to acknowledge I may have misunderstood. It is used here with absolutely no disrespect intended.
I remain deeply perplexed. I read your other piece you recommended and that makes sense to me. The one I am responding to does not.
respectfully
tom in Ohio
4.3.2012 | 11:16pm
Gil says:
Would the Cardinal support a heterosexual-divorce pride parade? A having-children-out-of-wedlock pride parade? What the Cardinal doesn’t understand is what the priest understood: there are lay ministers teaching (including heterosexually oriented ones), as at my church, that the Church along with its magisterium is WRONG in not permitting gay unions. Another one of Nietzsche’s predictions is taking place, that Dionysius will defeat the Crucified One by a crisis of undifferentiation. Do you really believe, Ms. Scalia, that a sinful life of a divorced married couple sexually engaged raising children together is the same as two men sexually engaged raising children? Perhaps you would have a point if there were no children involved, but states are allowing gays in union to adopt and to have children through surrogate birthing of children.
No sins related to the union of men and women should be condoned by the Church, and no divorced and remarried couple (who have not had an annulment) should be in leadership ministerial positions within the Church, and a woman who has had children out of wedlock and has repented and has chosen not to sin anymore should be allowed to be in a ministerial position within the Church, just as a man in sexual union with another man who has repented and ended that relationship and no longer sins in that way should be allowed to participate in a ministerial office within the Church. But no one who persists in sin and is proud of it should be in a leadership ministerial position.
The Cardinal made a bad decision.
No sins related to the union of men and women should be condoned by the Church, and no divorced and remarried couple (who have not had an annulment) should be in leadership ministerial positions within the Church, and a woman who has had children out of wedlock and has repented and has chosen not to sin anymore should be allowed to be in a ministerial position within the Church, just as a man in sexual union with another man who has repented and ended that relationship and no longer sins in that way should be allowed to participate in a ministerial office within the Church. But no one who persists in sin and is proud of it should be in a leadership ministerial position.
The Cardinal made a bad decision.
4.3.2012 | 11:54pm
justine says:
Reflecting and meditating this week to pray and remember Our Lord's sacrifice should constitute things more important than those of a political nature like the story mentioned. One should be wary of looking at religious or theological things only through impersonal social or political lens, neglecting the more imporant spiritual and integral ones of who Christ is and who we are.
4.4.2012 | 1:00am
Elizabeth Scalia says:
Tom in Ohio -- wrote: What you are saying, if true, is devastating. That is my point. You are painting a picture in which the homosexual act (un-closeted) is condoned. All the various shades of love the sinner but hate the sin and all the various ways of answering the perennial WWJD question, take all that as you will; this remains--condoning the homosexual act is a line we cannot cross.
Sir, please accept my apologies for seeming terse earlier (I was not feeling terse, but I can see where you might think it), but I have to say that you are still misreading me. I said nothing at all about "the homosexual act being condoned." I am not sure why you think "uncloseted" means "unchaste." I know homosexual men -- both priests and laymen -- who acknowledge that they are identify as homosexuals; that they are attracted to the same sex, but living by the teachings of the church and, where vowed, faithfully to their vows. Is this something you object to and find devastating? Worshiping with people whose lives are a testimony to the fullness of freedom of life within the church is objectionable to you? Really?
You are equating "uncloseted" with sexually active -- which is not what I said -- and then making an accusation toward me that I do not particularly appreciate. I don't think I am being unreasonable in asking you to consider what I have written and not written -- I choose my words very carefully -- or to consider the fact that people can be "out" and still be faithful and chaste. Eve Tushnet comes to mind.
Sir, please accept my apologies for seeming terse earlier (I was not feeling terse, but I can see where you might think it), but I have to say that you are still misreading me. I said nothing at all about "the homosexual act being condoned." I am not sure why you think "uncloseted" means "unchaste." I know homosexual men -- both priests and laymen -- who acknowledge that they are identify as homosexuals; that they are attracted to the same sex, but living by the teachings of the church and, where vowed, faithfully to their vows. Is this something you object to and find devastating? Worshiping with people whose lives are a testimony to the fullness of freedom of life within the church is objectionable to you? Really?
You are equating "uncloseted" with sexually active -- which is not what I said -- and then making an accusation toward me that I do not particularly appreciate. I don't think I am being unreasonable in asking you to consider what I have written and not written -- I choose my words very carefully -- or to consider the fact that people can be "out" and still be faithful and chaste. Eve Tushnet comes to mind.
4.4.2012 | 1:05am
Elizabeth Scalia says:
Macgabbhan, you asked for clarity. I thought I was pretty clear here:
We only just begun this walk. Christianity, particularly in America, is struggling with balance as it becomes ever more embroiled (willingly or not) in secular matters, but this will be a defining question: how do we follow the Christ’s example to “first see the human being” (ecce homo) while reconciling it with Matthew 19:3-5 and 11-12—words Jesus did not utter by accident?
We only just begun this walk. Christianity, particularly in America, is struggling with balance as it becomes ever more embroiled (willingly or not) in secular matters, but this will be a defining question: how do we follow the Christ’s example to “first see the human being” (ecce homo) while reconciling it with Matthew 19:3-5 and 11-12—words Jesus did not utter by accident?
4.4.2012 | 8:54am
Peg says:
I was thrown off by the description of the Austrian on the parish council as a "homosexual man living in civil union with another man". How were we to know they are living chastely (and I assume that chastity for them means celibacy)? Maybe they have confided to the Cardonal that they are celibate, but their living situation---if they are still living together---gives the appearance of continuing in sin. it looks scandalous.
4.4.2012 | 10:27am
Occum's Razor says:
Elizabeth said - "I am not sure why you think "uncloseted" means "unchaste." I know homosexual men -- both priests and laymen -- who acknowledge that they are identify as homosexuals; that they are attracted to the same sex, but living by the teachings of the church and, where vowed, faithfully to their vows. Is this something you object to and find devastating? Worshiping with people whose lives are a testimony to the fullness of freedom of life within the church is objectionable to you? Really?"
Please allow me to bring a point of clarity to all of this without any intention to insult you or anyone else Elizabeth:
I think it is very important that you frame this topic (whenever it is brought up) with the clear understanding that you are referring to the disordered state of "homosexual" (which is NOT in and of itself a sin but rather a psychological and spiritual struggle) as opposed to "homosexuality" which is the active lifestyle (which is a sin) that acts upon the brokenness of the struggle.
And please *please* do not take this as an insult to your communication skills or as anything more than a constructive insight into the position of those of us who are ourselves feeling constantly under attack by the world for doing nothing more than following the timeless moral precepts of our faith:
I think I speak for the vast majority of Roman Catholics who have remained loyal to the Magisterium when I state that, we would most certainly sympathize with (and embrace) any individual who openly states that they struggle with an inclination towards the homosexual lifestyle as they actively try to pursue a chaste life. I don't think this has ever been a problem for most of us. But please try to understand that we have been made to feel like WE'RE the ones who are moral outcasts by a militant social/political movement that is thoroughly closed-minded and bigoted towards ANY objections towards the openly gay/lesbian lifestyle.
The thing that angers most of us, is that any of our protests are automatically construed and labeled as "hateful". It is an active attempt to shout us down, drown us out, castigate us from the "norms" of society, paint us as dangerous, and ironically, label US as the close-minded bigoted fanatics who reject any sort of reasonable logic or compassion in our intolerance when in fact it is this militant "progessive" social movement that embodies all of those bigoted and hateful aspects.
I would like to point out that the entire basis of the "normalization" of this movement is rooted in the supposed recent psychological research that all of a sudden proves that the gay/lesbian lifestyle is just as normal and healthy as any other lifestyle. This however is NOT reflective of reality. I have to ask why you and other Catholic bloggers never present the well founded research and experience of psychologists, psychiatrists, and authors like Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, Dale O'Leary, or Robert Gilligan? All of them were featured on a week-long series of 'Women of Grace' on EWTN just last week addressing this topic in great detail. They not only presented the clinical evidence (of theirs and other researchers) that clearly shows that the gay/lesbian lifestyles are physically, psychologically, and spiritually devastating, but they also highlighted the fact that this data has been largely ignored and even suppressed by the media and "pop" psychology as a whole. In fact, I just purchased Dale O'Leary's wonderful book 'One Man, One Woman' (A Catholic's Guide to Defending Marriage) and it is chalked-full of well research data that clearly shows the devastating effects that gay activism has had on societies around the globe.
And there are also less well known Catholic psychologists like Dr Raymond Lloyd Richmond who runs the wonderful site ( http://www.chastitysf.com ) which provides "Psychological Healing in the Roman Catholic Mystic Tradition" for not just gay and lesbian individuals, but for anyone who is struggling with whatever personal demons.
So please take this as a suggestion (or perhaps more accurately) as a request, to present more of the rational and well researched facts that SUPPORT the spiritual, psychological, medical, and social basis of the Catholic Church's wisdom on this moral doctrine. This is vital right now because the Church's position is inaccurately being presented as "because I said so- that's why!" And it is this gross distortion through unintentional or perhaps willful ignorance of the facts that fosters the popular attitude that the traditional moral wisdom of the Church is archaic, close-minded, and grounded in the hatefulness of bigotry. This omission of the facts is not only grossly unfair to The Church, but it is growing to be more and more dangerous to this powder-keg of controversy that is building up to be a major schism in the Church the world over.
So please Elizabeth, consider presenting some balance to this topic by adding the voices of those who support the Church's position with rational factual evidence along with a healing heart of Christ's compassion. Without this balance, it is doubtful that any peaceful or meaningful dialogue can really begin to take shape in our beautiful Church.
Peace be with everyone.
Please allow me to bring a point of clarity to all of this without any intention to insult you or anyone else Elizabeth:
I think it is very important that you frame this topic (whenever it is brought up) with the clear understanding that you are referring to the disordered state of "homosexual" (which is NOT in and of itself a sin but rather a psychological and spiritual struggle) as opposed to "homosexuality" which is the active lifestyle (which is a sin) that acts upon the brokenness of the struggle.
And please *please* do not take this as an insult to your communication skills or as anything more than a constructive insight into the position of those of us who are ourselves feeling constantly under attack by the world for doing nothing more than following the timeless moral precepts of our faith:
I think I speak for the vast majority of Roman Catholics who have remained loyal to the Magisterium when I state that, we would most certainly sympathize with (and embrace) any individual who openly states that they struggle with an inclination towards the homosexual lifestyle as they actively try to pursue a chaste life. I don't think this has ever been a problem for most of us. But please try to understand that we have been made to feel like WE'RE the ones who are moral outcasts by a militant social/political movement that is thoroughly closed-minded and bigoted towards ANY objections towards the openly gay/lesbian lifestyle.
The thing that angers most of us, is that any of our protests are automatically construed and labeled as "hateful". It is an active attempt to shout us down, drown us out, castigate us from the "norms" of society, paint us as dangerous, and ironically, label US as the close-minded bigoted fanatics who reject any sort of reasonable logic or compassion in our intolerance when in fact it is this militant "progessive" social movement that embodies all of those bigoted and hateful aspects.
I would like to point out that the entire basis of the "normalization" of this movement is rooted in the supposed recent psychological research that all of a sudden proves that the gay/lesbian lifestyle is just as normal and healthy as any other lifestyle. This however is NOT reflective of reality. I have to ask why you and other Catholic bloggers never present the well founded research and experience of psychologists, psychiatrists, and authors like Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, Dale O'Leary, or Robert Gilligan? All of them were featured on a week-long series of 'Women of Grace' on EWTN just last week addressing this topic in great detail. They not only presented the clinical evidence (of theirs and other researchers) that clearly shows that the gay/lesbian lifestyles are physically, psychologically, and spiritually devastating, but they also highlighted the fact that this data has been largely ignored and even suppressed by the media and "pop" psychology as a whole. In fact, I just purchased Dale O'Leary's wonderful book 'One Man, One Woman' (A Catholic's Guide to Defending Marriage) and it is chalked-full of well research data that clearly shows the devastating effects that gay activism has had on societies around the globe.
And there are also less well known Catholic psychologists like Dr Raymond Lloyd Richmond who runs the wonderful site ( http://www.chastitysf.com ) which provides "Psychological Healing in the Roman Catholic Mystic Tradition" for not just gay and lesbian individuals, but for anyone who is struggling with whatever personal demons.
So please take this as a suggestion (or perhaps more accurately) as a request, to present more of the rational and well researched facts that SUPPORT the spiritual, psychological, medical, and social basis of the Catholic Church's wisdom on this moral doctrine. This is vital right now because the Church's position is inaccurately being presented as "because I said so- that's why!" And it is this gross distortion through unintentional or perhaps willful ignorance of the facts that fosters the popular attitude that the traditional moral wisdom of the Church is archaic, close-minded, and grounded in the hatefulness of bigotry. This omission of the facts is not only grossly unfair to The Church, but it is growing to be more and more dangerous to this powder-keg of controversy that is building up to be a major schism in the Church the world over.
So please Elizabeth, consider presenting some balance to this topic by adding the voices of those who support the Church's position with rational factual evidence along with a healing heart of Christ's compassion. Without this balance, it is doubtful that any peaceful or meaningful dialogue can really begin to take shape in our beautiful Church.
Peace be with everyone.
4.4.2012 | 11:02am
harry says:
Hi, David Nickol,
You wrote:
"He [JP II] was speaking of the divorced and remarried, but why shouldn't the same hold for single gay people or those in same-sex relationships?"
Being homosexual is not a sin, it is a condition, just like being heterosexual is a condition, not a sin. Being in a same-sex -- sexually active -- relationship, which is what I assume you meant, is fornication, just like being in an unmarried, heterosexual, sexually active relationship is fornication. The Church has taught fornication is a serious sin for 2000 years.
What makes so many who consider themselves Catholic think that the Church is now going to make an exception to its 2000 year old teaching in the case of homosexual fornication? It may be because too many clerics, although there is no way they can express their approval of homosexual fornication by citing the official teaching of the Catholic Church, do indeed loudly teach their approval of it by their actions and their inaction.
You wrote:
"He [JP II] was speaking of the divorced and remarried, but why shouldn't the same hold for single gay people or those in same-sex relationships?"
Being homosexual is not a sin, it is a condition, just like being heterosexual is a condition, not a sin. Being in a same-sex -- sexually active -- relationship, which is what I assume you meant, is fornication, just like being in an unmarried, heterosexual, sexually active relationship is fornication. The Church has taught fornication is a serious sin for 2000 years.
What makes so many who consider themselves Catholic think that the Church is now going to make an exception to its 2000 year old teaching in the case of homosexual fornication? It may be because too many clerics, although there is no way they can express their approval of homosexual fornication by citing the official teaching of the Catholic Church, do indeed loudly teach their approval of it by their actions and their inaction.
4.4.2012 | 11:06am
Craig Roberts says:
To say that "people can be 'out' and still be faithful and chaste" (while true) is an attempt to change the word.
The word "out" has always meant a defiant stance against the taboo and shame of homosexuality that refuses to be embarrassed by society. This implies a refusal to repent or even acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin.
A gay person can only flaunt and celebrate their lifestyle if they are 'out'. To call homosexuals that chose not to do this and remain "faithful and chaste" after they have formally declared to the world that they are gay 'out' is disingenuous.
The word "out" has always meant a defiant stance against the taboo and shame of homosexuality that refuses to be embarrassed by society. This implies a refusal to repent or even acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin.
A gay person can only flaunt and celebrate their lifestyle if they are 'out'. To call homosexuals that chose not to do this and remain "faithful and chaste" after they have formally declared to the world that they are gay 'out' is disingenuous.
4.4.2012 | 2:05pm
Gil says:
David Nichol:
You quote John Paul II on sexual waywardness: "Pastors 'are called to help them experience the charity of Christ and the maternal closeness of the Church, receiving them with love, exhorting them to trust in God's mercy and suggesting, with prudence and respect, concrete ways of conversion and participation in the life of the community of the Church."
The problem is that many priests, bishops and cardinals are not suggesting, with prudence and respect, “concrete ways of conversion". They simply, in their own brand of wisdom, remain silent and tolerate behavior that severs us from God from a point of view not of Christian love, but more along the lines of Buddhist compassion.
You quote John Paul II on sexual waywardness: "Pastors 'are called to help them experience the charity of Christ and the maternal closeness of the Church, receiving them with love, exhorting them to trust in God's mercy and suggesting, with prudence and respect, concrete ways of conversion and participation in the life of the community of the Church."
The problem is that many priests, bishops and cardinals are not suggesting, with prudence and respect, “concrete ways of conversion". They simply, in their own brand of wisdom, remain silent and tolerate behavior that severs us from God from a point of view not of Christian love, but more along the lines of Buddhist compassion.
4.4.2012 | 2:15pm
MacGabhann says:
Well no, Ms. Scalia, contrary to what you may think, this is not a new walk but a well-trodden path.
Behold the human being first? Okay, you look at the priest who disallowed the young man in a lifelong, formal homosexual relationship from participating as a council member mandated to provide advice and direction on the pastoral concerns of his parish church and tell me what you see. Someone who did the wrong thing? Or someone who did the right thing? Or can you not tell just by beholding the man? By beholding his character and ability and commitment to “doing what Jesus would do?” Is that enough for you to judge?
It is all very well to acknowledge that homosexuals may, in their sexual intimacy, act in good conscience and lovingly, but it is quite another thing for the Church, on that account, to behave as if she did not hold and teach that homosexual practice is intrinsically wrong by endorsing as pastoral functionaries those who openly defy and repudiate her pastoral teachings. I imagine that there are many advocates of abortion who act in good conscience and with a loving heart; people who would regard the use of abortion as a valid means of expressing their familial responsibility and commitment to achieving and maintaining their own wellbeing and that of their loved ones. Behold those people, Ms. Scalia. Would you endorse them for your local parish council, to offer advice and guidance on implementing pastoral care?
Or perhaps you don’t believe that homosexual practice within a loving and committed relationship is intrinsically wrong? If that is the case you should say so, Ms. Scalia, unless of course you find that a too “narrow” and “fundamentalist” thing to do for one with your metaphysical sensibilities.
Behold the human being first? Okay, you look at the priest who disallowed the young man in a lifelong, formal homosexual relationship from participating as a council member mandated to provide advice and direction on the pastoral concerns of his parish church and tell me what you see. Someone who did the wrong thing? Or someone who did the right thing? Or can you not tell just by beholding the man? By beholding his character and ability and commitment to “doing what Jesus would do?” Is that enough for you to judge?
It is all very well to acknowledge that homosexuals may, in their sexual intimacy, act in good conscience and lovingly, but it is quite another thing for the Church, on that account, to behave as if she did not hold and teach that homosexual practice is intrinsically wrong by endorsing as pastoral functionaries those who openly defy and repudiate her pastoral teachings. I imagine that there are many advocates of abortion who act in good conscience and with a loving heart; people who would regard the use of abortion as a valid means of expressing their familial responsibility and commitment to achieving and maintaining their own wellbeing and that of their loved ones. Behold those people, Ms. Scalia. Would you endorse them for your local parish council, to offer advice and guidance on implementing pastoral care?
Or perhaps you don’t believe that homosexual practice within a loving and committed relationship is intrinsically wrong? If that is the case you should say so, Ms. Scalia, unless of course you find that a too “narrow” and “fundamentalist” thing to do for one with your metaphysical sensibilities.
4.4.2012 | 2:49pm
Gil says:
I would like to know where in the media it was reported that the two gay men who celebrated a gay union are in fact openly chaste (for it would be extremely important for members of the parish to know this, especially the malleable youth of the parish). I looked around on the Internet and couldn't find it. For example, here:
http://www.worldcrunch.com/hope-gay-catholics-top-cardinal-oks-openly-gay-man-serve-parish-council/5013
If it is in fact true that the gay man appointed to the church council is as a Catholic opposed to same-sex oriented persons engaging sexually, and is a heroic model to the larger Christian community, and thus lives with his partner not in sexual union, but in close friendship, then Ms. Scalia should have made that clear. It would have given an entirely different perspective on what she wrote, for, as Occum's Razor pointed out, we would be in full support of any same-sex oriented Christian who heroically chooses a celibate life as a Christian.
http://www.worldcrunch.com/hope-gay-catholics-top-cardinal-oks-openly-gay-man-serve-parish-council/5013
If it is in fact true that the gay man appointed to the church council is as a Catholic opposed to same-sex oriented persons engaging sexually, and is a heroic model to the larger Christian community, and thus lives with his partner not in sexual union, but in close friendship, then Ms. Scalia should have made that clear. It would have given an entirely different perspective on what she wrote, for, as Occum's Razor pointed out, we would be in full support of any same-sex oriented Christian who heroically chooses a celibate life as a Christian.
4.4.2012 | 3:49pm
David Nickol says:
harry,
You say: "What makes so many who consider themselves Catholic think that the Church is now going to make an exception to its 2000 year old teaching in the case of homosexual fornication?"
Are you saying that John Paul II was advocating an exception for those living in adultery—that is, the divorced and remarried? I see no reason at all why the Catholic Church can't treat same-sex couples exactly the same as sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried couples.
You say: "What makes so many who consider themselves Catholic think that the Church is now going to make an exception to its 2000 year old teaching in the case of homosexual fornication?"
Are you saying that John Paul II was advocating an exception for those living in adultery—that is, the divorced and remarried? I see no reason at all why the Catholic Church can't treat same-sex couples exactly the same as sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried couples.
4.4.2012 | 6:09pm
harry says:
Hi, David,
You wrote:
"I see no reason at all why the Catholic Church can't treat same-sex couples exactly the same as sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried couples."
For one thing, same-sex couples can never be sacramentally married. Get out your Catholic Catechism and do some reading. Do a little research on the Catholic concept of an annulment.
You wrote:
"I see no reason at all why the Catholic Church can't treat same-sex couples exactly the same as sacramentally married, civilly divorced, civilly remarried couples."
For one thing, same-sex couples can never be sacramentally married. Get out your Catholic Catechism and do some reading. Do a little research on the Catholic concept of an annulment.
4.4.2012 | 8:56pm
Gil says:
Matthew 7:12-19 New International Version:
“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
If I am planning to maintain a life of drug addiction or divorce my wife and marry my young secretary or begin a sexual relationship with another man because I desire any of these things more than anything else and find myself thinking almost exclusively about fulfilling any of them, I would want those who love me to do as I would do, try to talk me out of it from the depth of their love for me, and if I go ahead with fulfilling any of these desires against their good judgment, I would not want them to then submit and help convince me my soul isn’t in danger to make me feel better about my decision. For even if I stopped talking to them for many years, the day may arrive when I will look for someone I can trust, someone who knows well the path to the narrow gate, and it will be them I seek.
But then maybe this way of thinking is too narrow-minded. Perhaps there are more deeply nuanced metaphysical concerns that in my narrow-gate way of perceiving blinds me to a broader perspective.
Then perhaps, too, I am not listening to the obviously pious, hierarchical prophets of the Church who, too, insist my narrow-gate way of perceiving is not broad-minded enough. When I protest that children en masse are being misled into destructive lives through massive cultural accommodation to sexual waywardness in the name of tolerance, including inside the halls of the Church, I am told by the “holy prophetic voices” of Church leadership that I should develop more deeply my prudence, patience and tolerance and that over time the rotting fruit I am looking at will appear fresh and glorious.
“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.”
If I am planning to maintain a life of drug addiction or divorce my wife and marry my young secretary or begin a sexual relationship with another man because I desire any of these things more than anything else and find myself thinking almost exclusively about fulfilling any of them, I would want those who love me to do as I would do, try to talk me out of it from the depth of their love for me, and if I go ahead with fulfilling any of these desires against their good judgment, I would not want them to then submit and help convince me my soul isn’t in danger to make me feel better about my decision. For even if I stopped talking to them for many years, the day may arrive when I will look for someone I can trust, someone who knows well the path to the narrow gate, and it will be them I seek.
But then maybe this way of thinking is too narrow-minded. Perhaps there are more deeply nuanced metaphysical concerns that in my narrow-gate way of perceiving blinds me to a broader perspective.
Then perhaps, too, I am not listening to the obviously pious, hierarchical prophets of the Church who, too, insist my narrow-gate way of perceiving is not broad-minded enough. When I protest that children en masse are being misled into destructive lives through massive cultural accommodation to sexual waywardness in the name of tolerance, including inside the halls of the Church, I am told by the “holy prophetic voices” of Church leadership that I should develop more deeply my prudence, patience and tolerance and that over time the rotting fruit I am looking at will appear fresh and glorious.
4.5.2012 | 2:59pm
Gil says:
For those not informed on what the Catechism clearly states relative to homosexual acts, here's a quote: (#2357) "...tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law...Under no circumstances can they be approved." And the text is supported with Romans 1:24-27, 1 Corinthians 6:10 and 1 Timothy 1:10.
I know Cardinal Schonborn and Elizabeth Scalia are centered in Catholic moral theology when employing "the law of gradualism", with the argument that there are degrees of success in obeying the unchanging moral teachings of the Church, and we must be tolerant in allowing this process until gay Catholics finally arrive at abstinence, but what they apparently fail to understand is that prominent gay activists who view themselves as gay conservative Catholics (those most inclined to obey the Church’s teachings) like Andrew Sullivan (whose Catholic teaching is embraced by every gay Catholic I have argued with over the last 20 years) insist that the Church must change its unchanging moral teachings. Many want recognized, for example, that a monogamous sexual relationship does not automatically mean that a partner can’t have sex with another man, that it doesn’t violate the monogamous relationship if the commitment to one’s partner remains 100%. They in fact argue that this arrangement is superior to heterosexual marriages because in gay marriages, which are obviously founded on a sexual identity, one would not want to suppress a partner’s expression of his very identity in any context: that would be an act of violence. Andrew Sullivan also talks about how gays in a committed union will have anonymous sexual encounters that are “mystical” and therefore heighten the religious experience of their union.
In other words, what Cardinal Schonborn and Elizabeth Scalia fail to understand is that there is no real desire by gays (and I’m not talking about homosexuals, but persons committed to gay ideology, including gay Catholics who sit on church councils) to “gradually” find their way out of practicing sinful, disordered sexual behavior. The desire to do so just isn’t there.
I’m still waiting for anyone to give me an example of how the gay man under discussion had made it clear that he is committed to not engaging in homosexual acts and is a model to adult and teen same-sex oriented persons that the cross of abstinence is possible and joy-filled in Christ.
I know Cardinal Schonborn and Elizabeth Scalia are centered in Catholic moral theology when employing "the law of gradualism", with the argument that there are degrees of success in obeying the unchanging moral teachings of the Church, and we must be tolerant in allowing this process until gay Catholics finally arrive at abstinence, but what they apparently fail to understand is that prominent gay activists who view themselves as gay conservative Catholics (those most inclined to obey the Church’s teachings) like Andrew Sullivan (whose Catholic teaching is embraced by every gay Catholic I have argued with over the last 20 years) insist that the Church must change its unchanging moral teachings. Many want recognized, for example, that a monogamous sexual relationship does not automatically mean that a partner can’t have sex with another man, that it doesn’t violate the monogamous relationship if the commitment to one’s partner remains 100%. They in fact argue that this arrangement is superior to heterosexual marriages because in gay marriages, which are obviously founded on a sexual identity, one would not want to suppress a partner’s expression of his very identity in any context: that would be an act of violence. Andrew Sullivan also talks about how gays in a committed union will have anonymous sexual encounters that are “mystical” and therefore heighten the religious experience of their union.
In other words, what Cardinal Schonborn and Elizabeth Scalia fail to understand is that there is no real desire by gays (and I’m not talking about homosexuals, but persons committed to gay ideology, including gay Catholics who sit on church councils) to “gradually” find their way out of practicing sinful, disordered sexual behavior. The desire to do so just isn’t there.
I’m still waiting for anyone to give me an example of how the gay man under discussion had made it clear that he is committed to not engaging in homosexual acts and is a model to adult and teen same-sex oriented persons that the cross of abstinence is possible and joy-filled in Christ.
4.5.2012 | 3:29pm
echarles1 says:
I believe the church's teachings re: homosexuality are true. But for goodness sake let's not make that the defining teaching of Catholicism in our era. When I was reading Dante I was struck by the frequent mention of the sin of simony. His era was really worked up about simony. It is still a sin but how many of you know what simony is (before a google search!)?
My point is only that as humans we are going invent more ways to sin than any one person can attempt, living under more and better teachings than we can fulfill. The church's teachings on simony did not change, nor will its teachings on homosexuality. But Christ seems to have had priorities. Cardinal Schönborn's action is a demonstration of priorities.
My point is only that as humans we are going invent more ways to sin than any one person can attempt, living under more and better teachings than we can fulfill. The church's teachings on simony did not change, nor will its teachings on homosexuality. But Christ seems to have had priorities. Cardinal Schönborn's action is a demonstration of priorities.
4.5.2012 | 6:05pm
Gil says:
echarles1,
Reluctance and even violation of the Church's teaching on simony did not devastate marriages and destroy the lives of teens. What teachings that elevate simony to an ideal in public schools are you referencing?
Reluctance and even violation of the Church's teaching on simony did not devastate marriages and destroy the lives of teens. What teachings that elevate simony to an ideal in public schools are you referencing?
4.5.2012 | 7:15pm
harry says:
"Cardinal Schönborn's action is a demonstration of priorities."
Sadly, that is true. Sadly, because it is a demonstration of *his* priorities.
The Church is under assault by atheistic secularism and the godless social engineering of the modern secular state -- social engineering which includes an utter rejection of the traditional Christian understanding of human sexuality. Contemporary Christianity is facing no less a threat than when it was under assault by the Muslim empires during the pontificate of Pope Urban II, bringing him to launch the first crusade. Yet this assault is more deadly and dangerous than the Muslim threat because it is more like a cancer that ravages the body from within long before there are any obvious symptoms. The Churches are filled with people as usual, but, unlike having the Church bombed, which everyone would notice, we don't seem to notice or be too disturbed by the fact that many of those filling the Church really think no differently than the poor sheep outside who have been duped by godless social engineers regarding human sexuality. This is a much larger disaster than Churches being bombed.
The Muslim threat to Western Civilization and its Judeo-Christian foundation was a situation historian Thomas Madden described as follows:
"From the time of Mohammed, Muslims had sought to conquer the Christian world. They did a pretty good job of it, too. After a few centuries of steady conquests, Muslim armies had taken all of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and most of Spain.
"In other words, by the end of the 11th century the forces of Islam had captured two-thirds of the Christian world. Palestine, the home of Jesus Christ; Egypt, the birthplace of Christian monasticism; Asia Minor, where St. Paul planted the seeds of the first Christian communities — these were not the periphery of Christianity but its very core.
"And the Muslim empires were not finished yet. They continued to press westward toward Constantinople, ultimately passing it and entering Europe itself. As far as unprovoked aggression goes, it was all on the Muslim side. At some point what was left of the Christian world would have to defend itself or simply succumb to Islamic conquest."
And has not secularism and its radical contracepting, baby-killing, same-sex-marriage-promoting, homosexual-fornication-legitimizing, sex-as-recreation-only, eugenics-based view of human sexuality conquered much of the Church – and even some of its bishops? At some point what is left of the Christian world will have to defend itself or simply succumb to conquest.
We need bishops like Pope Urban II, who saw the threat and dealt with it. We need bishops who will launch a crusade directed first at their own flocks in defense of the truth of God's plan for human sexuality, before it is no longer a matter of wolves in sheep's clothing misleading their flock, but the flock being misled by shepherds who have been just as duped as the sheep, or the flock being misled by wolves in shepherd's clothing. Instead of our having bishops like Urban II, we have some bishops who either just don't “get it” or are deliberately working for the other side, overruling, publicly rebuking and chastising good priests who are doing the best they can to bring about healing in a flock infected with a terrible disease while their bishops not only resist their efforts but work to spread the disease.
The bishops need to face up to the threat to the Church godless social engineering has become. It is spreading an insidious disease that has infected their flocks. I think many Catholics, after finally having the truth of God's plan for human sexuality boldly and unashamedly presented to them, and finally comprehending the terrible consequences our rejection of it has brought upon themselves and the entire world, would accept God's plan gratefully and would respond to that teaching as the flocks did to Urban II as he promoted the first Crusade. After hearing his message they would shout, “God wills it!” And if most Church-goers simply will not respond to the truth in a positive way, then it is time to admit that buildings full of people are not what makes a Church. That alone sometimes makes only a mausoleum filled with dead people. The living Church consists first of the members of the Body of Christ who say with Him, “Father not my will but thine be done” – and that includes God's will regarding human sexuality.
Sadly, that is true. Sadly, because it is a demonstration of *his* priorities.
The Church is under assault by atheistic secularism and the godless social engineering of the modern secular state -- social engineering which includes an utter rejection of the traditional Christian understanding of human sexuality. Contemporary Christianity is facing no less a threat than when it was under assault by the Muslim empires during the pontificate of Pope Urban II, bringing him to launch the first crusade. Yet this assault is more deadly and dangerous than the Muslim threat because it is more like a cancer that ravages the body from within long before there are any obvious symptoms. The Churches are filled with people as usual, but, unlike having the Church bombed, which everyone would notice, we don't seem to notice or be too disturbed by the fact that many of those filling the Church really think no differently than the poor sheep outside who have been duped by godless social engineers regarding human sexuality. This is a much larger disaster than Churches being bombed.
The Muslim threat to Western Civilization and its Judeo-Christian foundation was a situation historian Thomas Madden described as follows:
"From the time of Mohammed, Muslims had sought to conquer the Christian world. They did a pretty good job of it, too. After a few centuries of steady conquests, Muslim armies had taken all of North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor and most of Spain.
"In other words, by the end of the 11th century the forces of Islam had captured two-thirds of the Christian world. Palestine, the home of Jesus Christ; Egypt, the birthplace of Christian monasticism; Asia Minor, where St. Paul planted the seeds of the first Christian communities — these were not the periphery of Christianity but its very core.
"And the Muslim empires were not finished yet. They continued to press westward toward Constantinople, ultimately passing it and entering Europe itself. As far as unprovoked aggression goes, it was all on the Muslim side. At some point what was left of the Christian world would have to defend itself or simply succumb to Islamic conquest."
And has not secularism and its radical contracepting, baby-killing, same-sex-marriage-promoting, homosexual-fornication-legitimizing, sex-as-recreation-only, eugenics-based view of human sexuality conquered much of the Church – and even some of its bishops? At some point what is left of the Christian world will have to defend itself or simply succumb to conquest.
We need bishops like Pope Urban II, who saw the threat and dealt with it. We need bishops who will launch a crusade directed first at their own flocks in defense of the truth of God's plan for human sexuality, before it is no longer a matter of wolves in sheep's clothing misleading their flock, but the flock being misled by shepherds who have been just as duped as the sheep, or the flock being misled by wolves in shepherd's clothing. Instead of our having bishops like Urban II, we have some bishops who either just don't “get it” or are deliberately working for the other side, overruling, publicly rebuking and chastising good priests who are doing the best they can to bring about healing in a flock infected with a terrible disease while their bishops not only resist their efforts but work to spread the disease.
The bishops need to face up to the threat to the Church godless social engineering has become. It is spreading an insidious disease that has infected their flocks. I think many Catholics, after finally having the truth of God's plan for human sexuality boldly and unashamedly presented to them, and finally comprehending the terrible consequences our rejection of it has brought upon themselves and the entire world, would accept God's plan gratefully and would respond to that teaching as the flocks did to Urban II as he promoted the first Crusade. After hearing his message they would shout, “God wills it!” And if most Church-goers simply will not respond to the truth in a positive way, then it is time to admit that buildings full of people are not what makes a Church. That alone sometimes makes only a mausoleum filled with dead people. The living Church consists first of the members of the Body of Christ who say with Him, “Father not my will but thine be done” – and that includes God's will regarding human sexuality.
4.5.2012 | 7:30pm
Gil says:
There is much confusion today concerning the contemplative life. Sincere and dedicated Christians are wrestling with a desire to at all times to love while living in a world where Satan will con us into believing that our love is best fulfilled in how he instructs us.
To every contemplative in our time I suggest reading Hans Urs von Balthasar's book "Prayer". It will clear up so many misconceptions about the prayer life (especially contemplative prayer) in our time.
Look around. The evidence is overwhelming that Satan has won the day. That because he appeals to our Christian sense of justice.
I love deeply the many gay persons who have entered my life over the last 50 years. Since I returned to the Church 27 years ago, I have always been convinced that the best thing I could do for my gay friends is to mediate the Christian life, and where possible, tell them directly, from my own experience, that Jesus is Lord and the only Lord in history who desires absolute freedom for all.
The question for the serious contemplative is this: Does Satan really have a point? Should we really reconsider the teachings on human sexuality as best represented for two thousand years in John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”? That is the question. And before answering, I must insist that you read this book.
To every contemplative in our time I suggest reading Hans Urs von Balthasar's book "Prayer". It will clear up so many misconceptions about the prayer life (especially contemplative prayer) in our time.
Look around. The evidence is overwhelming that Satan has won the day. That because he appeals to our Christian sense of justice.
I love deeply the many gay persons who have entered my life over the last 50 years. Since I returned to the Church 27 years ago, I have always been convinced that the best thing I could do for my gay friends is to mediate the Christian life, and where possible, tell them directly, from my own experience, that Jesus is Lord and the only Lord in history who desires absolute freedom for all.
The question for the serious contemplative is this: Does Satan really have a point? Should we really reconsider the teachings on human sexuality as best represented for two thousand years in John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body”? That is the question. And before answering, I must insist that you read this book.
4.5.2012 | 7:54pm
Gil says:
Ecce Homo
To engage the actual person, not the Christian insistence on the imitation of Christ as the completion of the self/personhood, we must embrace the post-modern definition of person, which is a being pursuing what he desires as the fulfillment his self.
The gay movement is seeking its highest affirmation by moving into the Church to make the Church over in its image and likeness. We can resist, of course. But in that resistance we will be labeled a bigot.
To engage the actual person, not the Christian insistence on the imitation of Christ as the completion of the self/personhood, we must embrace the post-modern definition of person, which is a being pursuing what he desires as the fulfillment his self.
The gay movement is seeking its highest affirmation by moving into the Church to make the Church over in its image and likeness. We can resist, of course. But in that resistance we will be labeled a bigot.
4.6.2012 | 1:12pm
Occum's Razor says:
echarles1 says: "My point is only that as humans we are going invent more ways to sin than any one person can attempt"
There is no sin possible under the sun that has not already been tasted. The circumstances matter little, because the sins of the world are still the same tired old repeated offenses from ancient eternity.
There is no sin possible under the sun that has not already been tasted. The circumstances matter little, because the sins of the world are still the same tired old repeated offenses from ancient eternity.
4.6.2012 | 2:06pm
Gil says:
And finally, as we move into Holy Saturday:
It is the rare person indeed who, in desiring a contemplative life, through an incomprehensible gift of grace from God does not need a spiritual director, a good one (which are fast disappearing), for there is a terrible danger, a terrible temptation, that easily accompanies the pursuit of a contemplative life: when entering an ecstatic state the contemplative easily perceives God’s all-encompassing love and forgiveness, and the danger/temptation is that the contemplative might lose sight of the Cross where Jesus paid the price for the forgiveness of sins, including grave sins like homosexual acts.
The reason it is wrong to judge a person who indulges in homosexual acts is that he has already been judged, and the price for his sins has already been paid. For us to judge him would be to set ourselves up as god, as if the judgment and paid debt had never happened; essentially a denying of Jesus’ passion. Our sin in judging others is the worst of sins: it is idolatry, setting ourselves up as god.
It is equally idolatrous for us to set ourselves up as gods and pronounce Jesus’ passion as unnecessary, that it never had to occur, that we are capable, for example, of forgiving the grave sins of homosexual acts through the process of mitigation: “Those two men engaging in homosexual acts love each other and have made a life-long commitment to one another, and that cancels out for us any real seriousness of sin: their sin is something we can certainly live with, something no greater than simony, something Jesus did not need to suffer for.” What the wayward contemplative and any other Catholic Christian who thinks this way has obviously forgotten is that only Jesus can forgive those grave sins through a priest in a confessional, and to intentionally deprive a person involved in these grave sins from meeting our Lord in the sacrament of confession-penance-reconciliation is itself a grave sin, for it then becomes a brother/sister in Christ who is depriving that person of what Jesus promised to him, a life more abundantly. And from what I have read I have heard nothing from Cardinal Schonborn that indicates that he is adamant that homosexual acts are grave sins that need to be confessed and forgiven before the sinner can again be reconciled in Christ’s Body as Christ present to the world, and especially to the members of any particular congregation, especially malleable youth.
There is in fact only one sin, refusing to do the will of the Father, and there are endless ways in thought and deed for us to accomplish this in our rebellion that began with Adam. Jesus became this sin of Adam in his flesh without sinning and paid the price for it. I am certain that a good examination of conscience is guaranteed with this awareness.
The first parousia was completed in three stages: 1) Jesus’ birth, the inauguration of the 8th day of Creation, a new Creation; 2) Jesus’ passion: the judgment of all our sins past present and future revealed in the price Jesus paid to have them forgiven; 3) Jesus’ resurrection and the sending of the Holy Spirit: Jesus is now obviously the Kingdom of God present in His Body the People of God (and most especially the Eucharist that concretely/literally unites us as His Body) and the life of the Holy Spirit guiding us. We can enter this Kingdom as did Mary, the apostles and the other saints beginning with Dismas (who confessed to Jesus and was forgiven) and Stephen. The sign of this 1st parousia was the destruction of the Temple. We since then are in the end times, and why it is foolish to look for it. The general Parousia, Final Judgment, will take place, but we who would accept it, not resist it, already have been gifted with it in the eternal now of Jesus in the 1st parousia.
My central point is that sin is always a refusal to do the will of our Father, and when we fail to point out to other Christians exactly how in their grave sins their defiance of the will of God is as severe as it can be, we, too, sin gravely in failing to do what God requests of us. Paul insisted that this is so, that a failure to tell a brother or sister how he/she has sinned gravely imports the severity of that sin to oneself. I just don’t see how we as Christians can get around this without setting ourselves up as gods with a higher authority than God the Father.
It is the rare person indeed who, in desiring a contemplative life, through an incomprehensible gift of grace from God does not need a spiritual director, a good one (which are fast disappearing), for there is a terrible danger, a terrible temptation, that easily accompanies the pursuit of a contemplative life: when entering an ecstatic state the contemplative easily perceives God’s all-encompassing love and forgiveness, and the danger/temptation is that the contemplative might lose sight of the Cross where Jesus paid the price for the forgiveness of sins, including grave sins like homosexual acts.
The reason it is wrong to judge a person who indulges in homosexual acts is that he has already been judged, and the price for his sins has already been paid. For us to judge him would be to set ourselves up as god, as if the judgment and paid debt had never happened; essentially a denying of Jesus’ passion. Our sin in judging others is the worst of sins: it is idolatry, setting ourselves up as god.
It is equally idolatrous for us to set ourselves up as gods and pronounce Jesus’ passion as unnecessary, that it never had to occur, that we are capable, for example, of forgiving the grave sins of homosexual acts through the process of mitigation: “Those two men engaging in homosexual acts love each other and have made a life-long commitment to one another, and that cancels out for us any real seriousness of sin: their sin is something we can certainly live with, something no greater than simony, something Jesus did not need to suffer for.” What the wayward contemplative and any other Catholic Christian who thinks this way has obviously forgotten is that only Jesus can forgive those grave sins through a priest in a confessional, and to intentionally deprive a person involved in these grave sins from meeting our Lord in the sacrament of confession-penance-reconciliation is itself a grave sin, for it then becomes a brother/sister in Christ who is depriving that person of what Jesus promised to him, a life more abundantly. And from what I have read I have heard nothing from Cardinal Schonborn that indicates that he is adamant that homosexual acts are grave sins that need to be confessed and forgiven before the sinner can again be reconciled in Christ’s Body as Christ present to the world, and especially to the members of any particular congregation, especially malleable youth.
There is in fact only one sin, refusing to do the will of the Father, and there are endless ways in thought and deed for us to accomplish this in our rebellion that began with Adam. Jesus became this sin of Adam in his flesh without sinning and paid the price for it. I am certain that a good examination of conscience is guaranteed with this awareness.
The first parousia was completed in three stages: 1) Jesus’ birth, the inauguration of the 8th day of Creation, a new Creation; 2) Jesus’ passion: the judgment of all our sins past present and future revealed in the price Jesus paid to have them forgiven; 3) Jesus’ resurrection and the sending of the Holy Spirit: Jesus is now obviously the Kingdom of God present in His Body the People of God (and most especially the Eucharist that concretely/literally unites us as His Body) and the life of the Holy Spirit guiding us. We can enter this Kingdom as did Mary, the apostles and the other saints beginning with Dismas (who confessed to Jesus and was forgiven) and Stephen. The sign of this 1st parousia was the destruction of the Temple. We since then are in the end times, and why it is foolish to look for it. The general Parousia, Final Judgment, will take place, but we who would accept it, not resist it, already have been gifted with it in the eternal now of Jesus in the 1st parousia.
My central point is that sin is always a refusal to do the will of our Father, and when we fail to point out to other Christians exactly how in their grave sins their defiance of the will of God is as severe as it can be, we, too, sin gravely in failing to do what God requests of us. Paul insisted that this is so, that a failure to tell a brother or sister how he/she has sinned gravely imports the severity of that sin to oneself. I just don’t see how we as Christians can get around this without setting ourselves up as gods with a higher authority than God the Father.
4.6.2012 | 3:15pm
echarles1 says:
@Gil
If a church hating gay activist and his dog fall into a raging river, and you can save only one which would you save? Thousands of years of Judeo-Christian teaching say that human life is intrinsically more valuable to God than animal life. You save the man you disagree with and not the dog you might love.
It is not an expression of approval of the man's activities. In fact it is prioritizing his human life over your disapproval of his activities.
Cardinal Schönborn made a decision in priorities. We were not there. Who knows but that he saved a life that day. Maybe he planted a seed that will take root.
If a church hating gay activist and his dog fall into a raging river, and you can save only one which would you save? Thousands of years of Judeo-Christian teaching say that human life is intrinsically more valuable to God than animal life. You save the man you disagree with and not the dog you might love.
It is not an expression of approval of the man's activities. In fact it is prioritizing his human life over your disapproval of his activities.
Cardinal Schönborn made a decision in priorities. We were not there. Who knows but that he saved a life that day. Maybe he planted a seed that will take root.
4.7.2012 | 5:31pm
Eric says:
With all charity and due respect, I find some of the comments on here to be one-dimensional. Though, admittedly, the article did not articulate any further on the term "un-closeted," but I really didn't feel it needed to.
I am a gay Catholic, in fact, a convert. I left a relationship to become Catholic. I am in no way "closeted." I am very open about the fact that I am gay, if the question arises. I also am celibate and I'm just as open about that. I don't dissent from the Church's teaching.
I strongly disagree with the perspective of most gay people on the question of homosexuality; I, quite obviously, sympathize. And while I strongly agree with all my orthodox Catholic brethren, I do find, and have experienced, that many can be very insensitive and without empathy, and thus, appear to be bigots.
I think this article is on to something. It's a gem. Glad to have read it.
I am a gay Catholic, in fact, a convert. I left a relationship to become Catholic. I am in no way "closeted." I am very open about the fact that I am gay, if the question arises. I also am celibate and I'm just as open about that. I don't dissent from the Church's teaching.
I strongly disagree with the perspective of most gay people on the question of homosexuality; I, quite obviously, sympathize. And while I strongly agree with all my orthodox Catholic brethren, I do find, and have experienced, that many can be very insensitive and without empathy, and thus, appear to be bigots.
I think this article is on to something. It's a gem. Glad to have read it.
4.7.2012 | 7:30pm
Ted Seeber says:
Teach heterosexual chastity, IGNORE the homosexual. Teach that the only reasonable fulfillment of human sexuality is in celibacy or marital procreation; the rest will sort itself out.
4.8.2012 | 12:18pm
harry says:
Hello, Eric,
God bless you!
I appreciated your comments.
I think Elizabeth Scalia's intent was to point out the bigotry of which you speak and was in no way to promote heterodox beliefs. Yet the fact remains that allowing one who is known by all to be living in serious sin (and it doesn't really matter whether that sin has to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality or is unrelated to sexual activity) *does* legitimize and promote heterodox beliefs and has a dramatic, negative effect upon impressionable parish members.
If Cardinal Schönborn's intent was only to dispel bigotry it would have made more sense to have someone with a homosexual orientation who was living chastely and was an orthodox Catholic placed on a parish council.
God bless you!
I appreciated your comments.
I think Elizabeth Scalia's intent was to point out the bigotry of which you speak and was in no way to promote heterodox beliefs. Yet the fact remains that allowing one who is known by all to be living in serious sin (and it doesn't really matter whether that sin has to do with homosexuality or heterosexuality or is unrelated to sexual activity) *does* legitimize and promote heterodox beliefs and has a dramatic, negative effect upon impressionable parish members.
If Cardinal Schönborn's intent was only to dispel bigotry it would have made more sense to have someone with a homosexual orientation who was living chastely and was an orthodox Catholic placed on a parish council.
4.8.2012 | 8:25pm
Gil says:
echarles1,
I haven't a clue as to what Cardinal Schonborn's intent was. I do know I could not find anything anywhere indicating that the man afflicted with same-sex attraction on the church council has in fact witnessed to a celibate life as a model for other Christians similarly afflicted, especially youth. I'm still waiting for someone to post how this man has witnessed to his faith in this way. After all, he has made public his sexual identity.
My concern, too, matches your concern for human life, and I don't see a human life separate from a human soul.
I haven't a clue as to what Cardinal Schonborn's intent was. I do know I could not find anything anywhere indicating that the man afflicted with same-sex attraction on the church council has in fact witnessed to a celibate life as a model for other Christians similarly afflicted, especially youth. I'm still waiting for someone to post how this man has witnessed to his faith in this way. After all, he has made public his sexual identity.
My concern, too, matches your concern for human life, and I don't see a human life separate from a human soul.
4.9.2012 | 9:46am
harry says:
I my previous post where I said, "Yet the fact remains that allowing one who is known by all to be living in serious sin" I should have added "to be on the parish council"
4.9.2012 | 2:58pm
Gil says:
From the book “The Essential Pope Benedict XVI” (p 260): “These words summarize Jesus’s whole message: ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.’ (Mk 1:15)…But hardly anyone…dares nowadays to proclaim the prophetic message: Repent!”
I think of the Leonard Cohen line from his prophetic song, “The Future”: “They said ‘Repent! Repent!’ I wonder what they meant?” The pope goes on to explain how we sidetrack soteriology by immersing ourselves in sociology. Then (on page 387) the pope writes, “…in the new conception…conscience is detached from its constitutive relationship with a content of moral truth, and is reduced to a mere formal condition of morality. Its suggestion, ‘do good and avoid evil,’ would have no necessary and universal reference to the truth concerning the good, but would be linked only with the goodness of the subjective intention.”
Granted, Cardinal Schonborn had little to say about his reinstating a gay man to a parish council, other than that he had met for lunch with the man and his partner whom the man had entered into a secularly sanctioned “sexual union” (it was never determined if they as a couple still abide in this) and is satisfied from that discussion that the man should be reinstated as a council member. From the little information that has been made available concerning the Cardinal’s decision, it seems that what was being discerned was not “a content of moral truth” and the power of repentance, but what the gay man’s subjective intention was (in any case, because the Cardinal knew his decision would have a profound impact on the universal Church, including the people of God, the Church deserved clarification).
This particular error is widespread in the Church and mostly operates at an unconscious level, but the result is apparent: as in a dysfunctional family, all the members have agreed not to talk about the ills, and those who do are accused in some fashion of betrayal, even to the tune of being called bigots. And one of the telling and chilling effects of this at the parish level, including adult catechesis, is that there is little or no discussion of sexual morality and how it relates to God’s plan for us, and how in defiance of that plan a scourge is now upon us, including the destruction of the lives of countless children. And make no mistake, once we abandon our moral clarity as Church to subjective intention (usually operating under the aegis of "moral relativity"), there is very little in moral theology we will be able to have an open discussion about other than themes approved in advance by mainstream media, the baptismal font of a secularism that not only openly opposes Christ, but demands child sacrifice as its singular form of worship.
I think of the Leonard Cohen line from his prophetic song, “The Future”: “They said ‘Repent! Repent!’ I wonder what they meant?” The pope goes on to explain how we sidetrack soteriology by immersing ourselves in sociology. Then (on page 387) the pope writes, “…in the new conception…conscience is detached from its constitutive relationship with a content of moral truth, and is reduced to a mere formal condition of morality. Its suggestion, ‘do good and avoid evil,’ would have no necessary and universal reference to the truth concerning the good, but would be linked only with the goodness of the subjective intention.”
Granted, Cardinal Schonborn had little to say about his reinstating a gay man to a parish council, other than that he had met for lunch with the man and his partner whom the man had entered into a secularly sanctioned “sexual union” (it was never determined if they as a couple still abide in this) and is satisfied from that discussion that the man should be reinstated as a council member. From the little information that has been made available concerning the Cardinal’s decision, it seems that what was being discerned was not “a content of moral truth” and the power of repentance, but what the gay man’s subjective intention was (in any case, because the Cardinal knew his decision would have a profound impact on the universal Church, including the people of God, the Church deserved clarification).
This particular error is widespread in the Church and mostly operates at an unconscious level, but the result is apparent: as in a dysfunctional family, all the members have agreed not to talk about the ills, and those who do are accused in some fashion of betrayal, even to the tune of being called bigots. And one of the telling and chilling effects of this at the parish level, including adult catechesis, is that there is little or no discussion of sexual morality and how it relates to God’s plan for us, and how in defiance of that plan a scourge is now upon us, including the destruction of the lives of countless children. And make no mistake, once we abandon our moral clarity as Church to subjective intention (usually operating under the aegis of "moral relativity"), there is very little in moral theology we will be able to have an open discussion about other than themes approved in advance by mainstream media, the baptismal font of a secularism that not only openly opposes Christ, but demands child sacrifice as its singular form of worship.
4.10.2012 | 2:18pm
Gil says:
Over at Commonweal they give a voice to Cardinal Schonborn concerning his decision: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=18270, which includes: "Thus there are many parish councilors whose lifestyle does not in every way conform to the ideals of the Church. In view of the life-witness that each of them gives taken as a whole, and their commitment to the attempt to live a life of faith, the Church rejoices in their efforts."
From these words alone I suspect the Cardinal is not aware of the deep theological implications of his view, and I will try to give expression to some of it here:
Hans Urs von Balthasar writes, “Only one who stands in the sphere of sanctity can understand and interpret God’s word.” He reminds us of the loss of a great tradition where theologians were saints, for they knew that the desire for sainthood was not separate from a desire to understand God’s word, what a multitude of modern theologians and biblical exegetes have long forgotten in their immersion into high subjectivity and moral relativism, which is tantamount to self worship, idolatry. In the 20th century and into the 21st we are recovering this sense of what should be apparent: for a person to truly understand the word of God, saintliness must be his/her ground. This is evidenced in the writings of theologians like Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac and Pope Benedict XVI. When we read their works we know we are in the company of the living God not through their great intellects (which they possess), but through their saintliness.
Alongside the great horrors of the 20th century stood some of the greatest popes in history, and this is a sign of a new great beginning for the Church, possibly a sign of entering the greatest millennium in Christian history, for through a century of the tyrannies of the most corrupt generation in history the Church stood strong, giving light to a darkened world and showing us the way out of this darkness through a narrow gate. The relentless suffering in this plague wrought by the sexual revolution and the moral confusion it sustains, the world now has nowhere else to go, like Jesus’ disciples when he told them they would have to consume his flesh and drink his blood: they could not at first accept this requirement to be saved, but they knew just enough to know that in their own dark age of perpetual enslavement they had nowhere else to go.
The now dominant cultural embrace of gay ideology will fall away, and with it the reductive identity imposed on its adherents. You see, a person who embraces the sexual identity of being gay, even in his desire to serve God by living a chaste life, a life of abstinence, will live a life of affliction that is unnecessary for a Christian (it would not be a cross, but entrapment in a form of masochism, a remnant of a former life he has not been totally freed from), which can easily sustain an interior bitterness, for to be a Christian means transcending all reductive sexual identities in Christ, for a sexual identity is always reductive and therefore always an assault on the gestalt of one’s being. It is not only same-sex oriented persons who become chaste in Christ as Christians, but also persons (other than heterosexually oriented sex addicts) who do not impose a sexual identity on themselves, for it is inescapable: if one’s ground of identity is sexual, then one cannot be fully who one is except in sexual engagement, for to be who he is means to be who he is IN THE WORLD, a concrete expression of identity (why in gay culture even at this late date sexually acting out in public places is required, even if simulated, as at gay pride parades), the same as a Christian not being able to be Christian outside of being a practicing Christian in the world, and why when Kierkegaard looked out over Christendom he saw no Christianity, for he saw no Christian actually living their faith in the world. For every person, it is what he does that defines him. Anything else would be an abstract identity, not a living identity, and why for every Christian his identity is explored in what only one word can define: mission.
To deprive a person with a sexual identity of sexual fulfillment is in fact denying his very being. That’s what gay ideologues argue, and they are right. Where I disagree with them is in their characterization of persons afflicted with same-sex orientation as innately, ontologically, having a sexual identity, an inescapable ground that if denied is in fact denying who they actually are as persons, which means, as Christians, they would be under constant assault by the Church, their cross never becoming light and never setting them truly free.
In the end it is always a question of identity. The caterpillar asks all of us: “Who…Are…You?”
The greatest challenge for modern Christians is in their refusal to entertain the notion that perhaps this man, Jesus Christ, is in fact who he said he is, the narrow gate that only a few will enter through. That sounds so discriminatory! This is why so many modern Christians continue to trudge along in their enervating struggle to build a wider, a more all-inclusive and beautifully decorated gate, an alternative to that narrow Christian gate with its shoddy, blood-soaked cross at the entrance.
From these words alone I suspect the Cardinal is not aware of the deep theological implications of his view, and I will try to give expression to some of it here:
Hans Urs von Balthasar writes, “Only one who stands in the sphere of sanctity can understand and interpret God’s word.” He reminds us of the loss of a great tradition where theologians were saints, for they knew that the desire for sainthood was not separate from a desire to understand God’s word, what a multitude of modern theologians and biblical exegetes have long forgotten in their immersion into high subjectivity and moral relativism, which is tantamount to self worship, idolatry. In the 20th century and into the 21st we are recovering this sense of what should be apparent: for a person to truly understand the word of God, saintliness must be his/her ground. This is evidenced in the writings of theologians like Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac and Pope Benedict XVI. When we read their works we know we are in the company of the living God not through their great intellects (which they possess), but through their saintliness.
Alongside the great horrors of the 20th century stood some of the greatest popes in history, and this is a sign of a new great beginning for the Church, possibly a sign of entering the greatest millennium in Christian history, for through a century of the tyrannies of the most corrupt generation in history the Church stood strong, giving light to a darkened world and showing us the way out of this darkness through a narrow gate. The relentless suffering in this plague wrought by the sexual revolution and the moral confusion it sustains, the world now has nowhere else to go, like Jesus’ disciples when he told them they would have to consume his flesh and drink his blood: they could not at first accept this requirement to be saved, but they knew just enough to know that in their own dark age of perpetual enslavement they had nowhere else to go.
The now dominant cultural embrace of gay ideology will fall away, and with it the reductive identity imposed on its adherents. You see, a person who embraces the sexual identity of being gay, even in his desire to serve God by living a chaste life, a life of abstinence, will live a life of affliction that is unnecessary for a Christian (it would not be a cross, but entrapment in a form of masochism, a remnant of a former life he has not been totally freed from), which can easily sustain an interior bitterness, for to be a Christian means transcending all reductive sexual identities in Christ, for a sexual identity is always reductive and therefore always an assault on the gestalt of one’s being. It is not only same-sex oriented persons who become chaste in Christ as Christians, but also persons (other than heterosexually oriented sex addicts) who do not impose a sexual identity on themselves, for it is inescapable: if one’s ground of identity is sexual, then one cannot be fully who one is except in sexual engagement, for to be who he is means to be who he is IN THE WORLD, a concrete expression of identity (why in gay culture even at this late date sexually acting out in public places is required, even if simulated, as at gay pride parades), the same as a Christian not being able to be Christian outside of being a practicing Christian in the world, and why when Kierkegaard looked out over Christendom he saw no Christianity, for he saw no Christian actually living their faith in the world. For every person, it is what he does that defines him. Anything else would be an abstract identity, not a living identity, and why for every Christian his identity is explored in what only one word can define: mission.
To deprive a person with a sexual identity of sexual fulfillment is in fact denying his very being. That’s what gay ideologues argue, and they are right. Where I disagree with them is in their characterization of persons afflicted with same-sex orientation as innately, ontologically, having a sexual identity, an inescapable ground that if denied is in fact denying who they actually are as persons, which means, as Christians, they would be under constant assault by the Church, their cross never becoming light and never setting them truly free.
In the end it is always a question of identity. The caterpillar asks all of us: “Who…Are…You?”
The greatest challenge for modern Christians is in their refusal to entertain the notion that perhaps this man, Jesus Christ, is in fact who he said he is, the narrow gate that only a few will enter through. That sounds so discriminatory! This is why so many modern Christians continue to trudge along in their enervating struggle to build a wider, a more all-inclusive and beautifully decorated gate, an alternative to that narrow Christian gate with its shoddy, blood-soaked cross at the entrance.
4.11.2012 | 11:21am
eli says:
Actions speak much more louder than words, i agree. This is vital right now because the Church's position is inaccurately being presented as "because I said so- that's why!" And it is this gross distortion through unintentional or perhaps willful ignorance of the facts that fosters the popular attitude that the traditional moral wisdom of the Church is archaic, close-minded, and grounded in the hatefulness of bigotry.
4.11.2012 | 6:24pm
Ed Gein says:
I think the Cardinal took a bold approach, and a great step towards Christian tolerance. He is completely correct in making his analogy with how Jesus would have reacted. Christians need to focus more on living their life the way Jesus taught, and accepting everyone as our brother. Bigotry should not be tolerated, and those who partake in it are the true sinners. Keep in mind that Jesus was nailed to the cross because he had beliefs that others disagreed with. I think Jesus would disapprove of the way homosexuals are treated by those who should have love in their heart.
4.12.2012 | 2:18pm
Gil says:
Mr. Gein,
You are not getting it. The majority of persons on this thread critical of Ms. Scalia's view happen to admire her dedication to the Church and to the human family, myself included. We are proud of her. We also, like her, love our brothers and sisters who fell victim to gay ideology, a pernicious ideology that is in service to sex liberationists who seek to destroy the institution of marriage. We are simply convinced that she is being led astray by a Cardinal who is as dedicated as she is to the Church and the institution of marriage, but who has also been led astray.
I know you don’t see it this way, but what is apparent to many on this board, and what you seem to support, is Cardinal Schonborn’s argument that since the majority of Catholics, including many priests and bishops who led us in defiance of the Church, initially rejected Pope Paul VI’s prophetic warning in Humanae Vitae concerning the inevitable outcome of the goals of the sexual revolution, which led to wide-spread sexual licentiousness (hedonistic freedom) among adults and teens with all its accompanying horrors within the Church itself, there is no reason to draw a line in the sand now and find our way back to our Lord, but instead we as Church should, in our quest for a humanistic goal of universal equality, venture into embracing homosexual acts as simply equally sinful as heterosexual acts so that they too can be not forgiven but humanistically mitigated out of being serious sins and tolerated in joyful acquiescence within parish life, especially in its ministries. As if the solution to the original error of rejecting Pope Paul VI’s warning is to reject that warning at an ever deeper level! Why stop now when we have gained so much ground in being gods unto ourselves with a power over sin far greater than the Cross, a Cross Christ could have avoided if he had only been gifted with our enlightened vision. For we have arranged it where no one will ever have to suffer in such a macabre way. In fact, we will arrange it so that no one will ever have to suffer even mild pangs of guilt, for we will root out the root of all our psychological ills, the terrible shame inflicted on us by God after falling from His grace. And then, and only then, will we be free to bask in the perpetual joy of being simply…well…gay!
Two things: 1) Persons in parish ministries who are adamant not only in residing in mortal sin, but seek to advertise it or openly make a life-long commitment to a relationship that eventuates in committing that sin, are not fit for parish ministries. Not only because how they have chosen to live in sin does not coalesce with an effective spreading of the gospel message (potential converts would either ignore us or laugh at us in our hypocrisy), as well as their devastating lifestyle-effect on children, but, as we witness daily, other parishioners feel pressured not to talk about those sins in catechetical instruction, and pastors don’t broach it in homilies, not wanting to embarrass fellow parishioners, effectively silencing vital information in areas of faith and morals, a lukewarm approach to living a lukewarm faith. Remember Paul said that if for any reason you do not know how to imitate Christ, then imitate him, for he imitates Christ: this is the singular dynamic that should always be at play in parish ministries, and when a minister falls we don’t judge him/her, for they have the sacrament of reconciliation with its ocean of 7 x 70 forgivenesses. 2) Heterosexual acts related to procreation and the union of man and woman at the deepest level, the restoration of their true identities in Christ the new Adam, are not sinful. In other words, heterosexual acts are not always and everywhere sinful, but homosexual acts are because they are intrinsically disordered and acts of grave depravity. To blind ourselves to this is an example of the crisis of undifferentiation embedded in a solely humanistic approach to equality, one of Satan’s ploys in advancing the sexual revolution and destroying the lives of children.
Cardinal Schonborn should be leading us out of this foray of sexual liberation into a milieu of sanctity in the unity of the Holy Spirit, not a milieu of acquiescence to sin as the norm of parish life to allow the plundering of our souls to continue unabated.
You are not getting it. The majority of persons on this thread critical of Ms. Scalia's view happen to admire her dedication to the Church and to the human family, myself included. We are proud of her. We also, like her, love our brothers and sisters who fell victim to gay ideology, a pernicious ideology that is in service to sex liberationists who seek to destroy the institution of marriage. We are simply convinced that she is being led astray by a Cardinal who is as dedicated as she is to the Church and the institution of marriage, but who has also been led astray.
I know you don’t see it this way, but what is apparent to many on this board, and what you seem to support, is Cardinal Schonborn’s argument that since the majority of Catholics, including many priests and bishops who led us in defiance of the Church, initially rejected Pope Paul VI’s prophetic warning in Humanae Vitae concerning the inevitable outcome of the goals of the sexual revolution, which led to wide-spread sexual licentiousness (hedonistic freedom) among adults and teens with all its accompanying horrors within the Church itself, there is no reason to draw a line in the sand now and find our way back to our Lord, but instead we as Church should, in our quest for a humanistic goal of universal equality, venture into embracing homosexual acts as simply equally sinful as heterosexual acts so that they too can be not forgiven but humanistically mitigated out of being serious sins and tolerated in joyful acquiescence within parish life, especially in its ministries. As if the solution to the original error of rejecting Pope Paul VI’s warning is to reject that warning at an ever deeper level! Why stop now when we have gained so much ground in being gods unto ourselves with a power over sin far greater than the Cross, a Cross Christ could have avoided if he had only been gifted with our enlightened vision. For we have arranged it where no one will ever have to suffer in such a macabre way. In fact, we will arrange it so that no one will ever have to suffer even mild pangs of guilt, for we will root out the root of all our psychological ills, the terrible shame inflicted on us by God after falling from His grace. And then, and only then, will we be free to bask in the perpetual joy of being simply…well…gay!
Two things: 1) Persons in parish ministries who are adamant not only in residing in mortal sin, but seek to advertise it or openly make a life-long commitment to a relationship that eventuates in committing that sin, are not fit for parish ministries. Not only because how they have chosen to live in sin does not coalesce with an effective spreading of the gospel message (potential converts would either ignore us or laugh at us in our hypocrisy), as well as their devastating lifestyle-effect on children, but, as we witness daily, other parishioners feel pressured not to talk about those sins in catechetical instruction, and pastors don’t broach it in homilies, not wanting to embarrass fellow parishioners, effectively silencing vital information in areas of faith and morals, a lukewarm approach to living a lukewarm faith. Remember Paul said that if for any reason you do not know how to imitate Christ, then imitate him, for he imitates Christ: this is the singular dynamic that should always be at play in parish ministries, and when a minister falls we don’t judge him/her, for they have the sacrament of reconciliation with its ocean of 7 x 70 forgivenesses. 2) Heterosexual acts related to procreation and the union of man and woman at the deepest level, the restoration of their true identities in Christ the new Adam, are not sinful. In other words, heterosexual acts are not always and everywhere sinful, but homosexual acts are because they are intrinsically disordered and acts of grave depravity. To blind ourselves to this is an example of the crisis of undifferentiation embedded in a solely humanistic approach to equality, one of Satan’s ploys in advancing the sexual revolution and destroying the lives of children.
Cardinal Schonborn should be leading us out of this foray of sexual liberation into a milieu of sanctity in the unity of the Holy Spirit, not a milieu of acquiescence to sin as the norm of parish life to allow the plundering of our souls to continue unabated.
4.17.2012 | 11:45am
tina says:
The political polarization that has occurred between the Left and Right drew many churches into it (mainline Protestants toward the Left, evangelicals toward the Right). This has greatly weakened the church’s credibility in the broader culture, with many viewing churches as mere appendages and pawns of political parties.
"Homosexuality," which can only be determined based on behavior or testimony, is *learned* (so early that the "student" has little memory of it and swears it is inherent), just as racial prejudice or taste in music is learned. With repetition of an idea (or a sound, or a stimulus), the very cells change (the hard-wiring is reconfigured, often in ways that are hard to undo).
We must be very careful what weteach the young, what we expose them to. "Behold the man." Yes. He was a boy once. God makes each of us, and He makes us good. But we have free will, and by our own free-will choices we aid God in sculpting our souls (along with our minds and bodies).
†