The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionA teaching that is disordered
Feb. 15, 2010
When Cardinal Francis George of Chicago released a statement Feb. 5 discrediting New Ways Ministry, which describes itself as a “gay-positive ministry” (see story), he was, indeed, standing on a solid foundation of church teaching, even if it contains some of the most noxious sentiments one might imagine using about another human being.
In 1975, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics,” outlined an approach to homosexuality that distinguished between “the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions,” the latter described as “intrinsically disordered.”
Eleven years later, the same congregation felt compelled to speak exclusively about homosexuality in a letter to the U.S. bishops “on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” that ratcheted up the previous position, noting that in the aftermath of that earlier declaration “an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good.” To dispel such notions, the congregation made it clear that while “the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
It is becoming more apparent each year that the church eventually will have to confront the reality of homosexuality -- the experience of individuals and families and the growing understanding by human science of different sexual orientations -- with something more credible than dehumanizing phrases.
Calling someone “intrinsically disordered” may serve to fit them into a neat theological container, but it is a useless and insulting designation to those who know their children or friends as whole and healthy humans who have much to offer life in general, and each other, not least committed and long-term love.
New Ways Ministries for decades has been a responsible and reasonable advocate for justice for gays and lesbians in the church and wider society. Sadly, the church in this instance continues to reflect the worst instincts of the secular culture, insisting on widening the breach between itself and our homosexual brothers and sisters and offering little in the way of human understanding.
What you fail to mention in
What you fail to mention in this editorial is that the Church teaches that HOMOSEXUALITY is "intrinsically disordered." This applies to the condition, not necessarily individuals.
It is not the teaching that is disordered; it is the interpretation of the teaching by New Ways Ministry that is disordered.
"This applies to the
"This applies to the condition, not necessarily individuals."
And tell me, TNCath, where will you find the condition except in an individual? You toy with abstractions in order to salvage a false perspective.
WILL STRAIGHT PEOPLE PLEASE
WILL STRAIGHT PEOPLE PLEASE SHUT UP
I am a gay man and I don't presume to know how heterosexual people feel, act, etc. based on their sexuality. I take them at face value as co-children of God. You never hear white people describing the black experience or (if they do) they are rightfully accused of being arrogant and insensitive. Yet, the Church (and I include other faiths as well) has been hammering away at this issue in an effort to "scapegoat" LGBT men and women for every ill from pedophilia to H1N1 LOL! I mean, even the American Psychiatric Association removed Homosexuality from the list of mental disorders in the DSM-IV in 1969. So get off our backs and quit categorizing us in arcane and confusing language like; "intrinsically disordered". I am sick and tired of celibate white old elitist males engaging in the hubris of gay-bashing when they know nothing about it - OR DO THEY?
Rick Folker in KC
Thanks for seeing the tru
Thanks for seeing the tru face of God "Bro"
Rick, you and others who
Rick, you and others who falsely claim "identity" as equal to sexual orientation were not "born that way." That's a bunch of adopted political propaganda. You became that way; it was most comfortable for whatever personal reasons and background, to align yourself with a preference for your same gender. Sexuality does not equal identity, as our identities are neither defined by our sexuality nor limited by them. To equate identity with sexuality is in itself disordered. Get beyond your genitals.
And you need to get beyond
And you need to get beyond your prejudice.
and it is not just prejudice
and it is not just prejudice - it is chosen ignorance - when the blind claim that they can see.
Anonymous114: You don't have
Anonymous114: You don't have a clue what you are talking about. The biggest error is to not know what you don't know.
Rick same sex attraction can
Rick same sex attraction can be a confusing thing and I feel you might find it very interesting to read more widely on the topic before believing or accepting that this is a permanent and intrinsic part of you as a person.
There has been a lot of gender confusion in society over the last 20 years and sometimes people are too quick to assume that certain feelings or characteristics mean they are orientated in a same sex way.
NARTH and Courage might be worth exploring. Every blessing whatever you decide to do from a sister in Christ.
Try being told that the way
Try being told that the way you were born is just a "condition that is inrinsically disordered" and see how you feel about it. I did not ask for this "inclination" and I certainly don't need dunder-heads who try to parse their way out of insulting me to define who I am.
Try reading your bible, maybe that gospel written by the "beloved" of christ.
I did not ask for all the
I did not ask for all the disordered inclinations that I have as a result of concupiscence either. I am born again through Baptism, but still I sin and want to sin. It is the fallen condition. This doesn't mean that I demand people accept my disordered desires or that God created them and they are therefore good. God allows them for His glory, that I might love like Him someday in a sacrificial Love.
And my disordered desires do not define who I am, though the evil one wants them to. Thank God for His Sacraments! We are redeemed once, but must accept it often.
Hey, I have this problem with
Hey, I have this problem with concupiscence, too, but I at least have the option to remarry with blessing of church and state.
As for your view that God "allows [your disordered desires] for His glory," I'm reminded of that scriptural passage where Jesus tells his listeners that his burden is light. Indeed, Jesus condemns the religious authorities of his day and place for imposing undue burdens on the people.
Now, I'm not suggesting that God would approve of our sinning, but we should avoid suggesting that God somehow implicitly approves of our suffering.
God's love is unconditional. He loves us even while we're sinning. JPII once remarked that we make our own hells. Jesus instructed his disciples to forgive indefinitely --- which strongly suggests that God is prepared to forgive us indefinitely.
In the parable of the Prodigal Son, it is the Father who takes the initiative to reach out to his stupid son --- well before the lad has a chance to get a word in edgewise. The son did not return to his Father to repent. No, the son had nowhere else to go.
God takes the initiative --- even when we fail to do so --- even for the so-called "right reason."
"God is Love."
Says it all!
What your commentary shows is
What your commentary shows is only that you are a bigot and that you use language not to tell the truth, but to cover your own oppression of others. We already know how you hate the sex abuse scandal to be raised, preferring to sweep that aside as if it's no longer of any consequence. How convenient.
TNCath, using your
TNCath, using your reasoning:
If you were a gay or lesbian Catholic "returning to the fold," I'd meet you in front of the church, smile, extend my hand, and say (most sincerely), "Welcome home, my brother (or sister) with an intrinsic disorder."
".......... it is a useless
".......... it is a useless and insulting designation" Not only is it that, but also irresponsible and irrational. Gratefully, our understanding about human sexuality has matured and been refined by the contributions of science, psychology, and progressive theology. It is time to move out of the earlier centuries of ignorance, fear, and closed-mindedness towards anyone who doesn't fit the stereotype of the generic. Let us open our God-given minds and begin to think beyond what fear and prejudice have taught us and use love, compassion, and reason to inform us.
Rome and its leaders should
Rome and its leaders should recall that lying and bearing false witness is also "intrinsically disordered". Then, perhaps, compare the so-called injury that homosexuals perpetrate on the common good against the decades of lies and obfuscation that Rome and its Dioceses perpetrated upon the common good with the sex scandal. Are they even comparable?
As my grandmother often said, "It sounds like the pot calling the kettle black."
As a Catholic and a
As a Catholic and a homosexual man, I try consistently to defend the present pope (whose style I much prefer to that of his predecessor) e.g, when he was misquoted about homosexuality and rainforests in an address he gave to the Curia before Christmas 2008, which few of his attackers read, and his recent address to English bsihops in which he never mentioned 'homosexuals' or 'transexuals' as some reporters allege. We all know where he stands on homosexuality, and that's his right, I suppose, but I find him far more nuanced than rip-roaring JP 2.
Cardinal George is, however, another kettle of fish, who really ought to find other things with which to concern himself.
In the heel of the hunt, Catholic (along with Jewish and Islamic) teaching on sexuality is gravely disordered. Jesus never mentions homosexuality, and the only area of sexual morality that seems to really excite him is divorce, and I suspect that is because of his concern for women. Yes, that great psychological case study, St. Paul, does say a few things on the topic, but one should beware of reading him out of his historical and sociological context.
If and when same sex marriage is ever introduced into my country (Ireland) it will be an option, and won't be compulsory, so please, reverend gents, do stop worrying so much.
Gezzamac have you heard of
Gezzamac have you heard of NARTH and Courage Why not contact them You have nothing to lose by doing so and much to gain?
Courage and NARTH continue to
Courage and NARTH continue to propound the discredited idea of “Reparative Therapy.” See: “Psychologists Repudiate Gay-To-Straight Therapy”
(http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/08/05/us/AP-US-Psychologists-Gays.h...)
“Insufficient Evidence that Sexual Orientation Change Efforts Work, Says APA”
(http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2009/08/therapeutic.aspx)
NARTH has gone so far as to MISQUOTE respected geneticist Francis Collins, (http://www.narth.com/docs/nothardwired.html) giving the impression that he supports NARTH’s unprovable contention that homosexuality is curable. Dr. Collins responded to this contention (http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/05/major-geneticist-francis-collins-re...) and said this:
“The evidence we have at present strongly supports the proposition that there are hereditary factors in male homosexuality — the observation that an identical twin of a male homosexual has approximately a 20% likelihood of also being gay points to this conclusion, since that is 10 times the population incidence. But the fact that the answer is not 100% also suggests that other factors besides DNA must be involved. That certainly doesn’t imply, however, that those other undefined factors are inherently alterable.”
Courage, rather than encouraging the difficult task of integration of sexuality and spirituality, promotes the destructive activity of repression. For the members of Courage, the various doctrines of the Magisterium that attempt to address the issue of homosexuality comprise the final word on the matter. For Courage it is not just the Magisterium that is speaking but Christ himself. Science, however, tells us that gender and sexuality are vastly complex realities. When will the Church’s official teaching begin to reflect such complexity?
These are the types of questions that many Catholics are asking. They are legitimate questions with important theological implications.
Yet sadly, Courage and the Church’s responses to such questions are woefully inadequate. It’s simply not good enough to say, “Well, this is how it’s always been, so it must be right,” especially since it’s clear that the basis of “what it’s always been” has been informed by limited sources. And when we limit our sources, we’re limiting and obstructing God’s wise and loving outreach to us.
Australian Catholic theologian Paul Collins reminds us that, “Consulting the laity in the formulation of doctrine is part of Catholicism’s theological tradition. Also, the whole Church’s acceptance of papal and episcopal teaching is an integral part of testing the veracity of that teaching. The hierarchy does not have a monopoly on truth.”
Collins finds support for such claims in the writings of the English theologian, soon-to-be-beatified Cardinal John Henry Newman (1801-90), “who said unequivocally that the laity have to be consulted in matters of doctrine, especially when teachings concern their lives so intimately”. (Collins, P., Between the Rock and a Hard Place: Being Catholic Today, ABC Books, Sydney, 2004, p. 12.)
Wrote Newman: “The body of the faithful is one of the witnesses to the fact of the tradition of revealed doctrine, and [. . .] their consensus through Christendom is the voice of the Infallible Church”. (Newman, J.H., On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, (1859), ed. John Coulson, Collins, London, 1961, p. 63.)
Lastly, let me direct readers to this “Statement on Sexual Orientation and Conversion Therapies” by Mark Pope, Ed.D. (http://www.dignityusa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/markpope.pdf). This article gives a succinct explanation on why the positions of “ex-gay” movements, Courage and NARTH are not healthy, productive nor life-giving and life affirming.
For those who choose not to read this article, I will provide this telling information:
“Dr. Ariel Shidlo and Dr. Michael Schroeder in a 2003 article published in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice surveyed 202 individuals who had participated in sexual orientation conversion interventions. They found that only 4% of those individuals were able to successfully “manage their homosexual behavior,” with over 74% of the group experiencing “significant long-term (psychological) damage from the conversion therapy” (p. 254). They blamed themselves for not being able to change and reported feeling worse than when they originally sought conversion therapy.”
"Australian Catholic
"Australian Catholic theologian Paul Collins reminds us that, “Consulting the laity in the formulation of doctrine is part of Catholicism’s theological tradition. Also, the whole Church’s acceptance of papal and episcopal teaching is an integral part of testing the veracity of that teaching. The hierarchy does not have a monopoly on truth.”
Paul Collins is an ex priest whose writings are a dubious source of enlightenment to begin with-in this case he is skipping over the mandate of the Church's bishops to teach their flock. The veracity of a teaching does not need to be tested by a market survey of whether that teaching is being practised. Jesus said His Church would teach His Truth.Even if a majority of catholics fell away from practising their faith it would not mean the teaching was untrue it would simply mean many catholics have put down their cross and immersed themselves in the secular world.
Wrote Newman: “The body of
Wrote Newman: “The body of the faithful is one of the witnesses to the fact of the tradition of revealed doctrine, and [. . .] their consensus through Christendom is the voice of the Infallible Church”. (Newman, J.H., On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine, (1859), ed. John Coulson, Collins, London, 1961, p. 63.)
In other words the continued existence of the Church over 2000 years is one proof of its Divine orign.
It is not as Paul Collins suggests an endorsement of teachings arrived at by popular consensus!
While doctrine is not
While doctrine is not determined by majority vote, we cannot rule out the role of the Holy Spirit in doctrinal development (and development means change/improvement in human understanding of the Truth). We know the Spirit works among all the People of God, not just among the ordained, much less just among the hierarchs, i.e., our "official teachers".
In other words, in this day of better educated and informed people, the teachers can learn just as much from the rest of us as we can learn from them. Learning in this context is a systemic process, not (much at all anymore) "top down". Hence, Vatican II's acknowledgement of the "sense of the faithful" in this doctrinal development.
Even Joseph Ratzinger acknowledged the primacy of fact over doctrine (1966). Although the explanation of sexual orientation is still largely unknown, we are getting information --- scientific, experiential, philosophical, theological --- that cannot but give us reason to challenge the continuing truth claims, i.e., doctrinal validity, of the Church of Rome on this matter.
Life is change, and the Spirit is the Source of life in the church.
No change = No life.
The change that is life is
The change that is life is the change in our hearts and minds as we each strive for holiness
Visit NARTH's website and
Visit NARTH's website and that of Courage and see for yourself rather than rely on secondary sources.
Courage & NARTH continue to
Courage & NARTH continue to promote "therapies" that have been discredited by broad-based reputable scientific and medical authorities. They can claim all they want. The proof is in the pudding:
“Dr. Ariel Shidlo and Dr. Michael Schroeder in a 2003 article published in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice surveyed 202 individuals who had participated in sexual orientation conversion interventions. They found that only 4% of those individuals were able to successfully “manage their homosexual behavior,” with over 74% of the group experiencing “significant long-term (psychological) damage from the conversion therapy” (p. 254). They blamed themselves for not being able to change and reported feeling worse than when they originally sought conversion therapy.”
I wonder if somebody did the
I wonder if somebody did the study that they wouldn't find that NARTH and Courage have driven more gays to suicide than heterosexuality.
Heterosexuality is the cause
Heterosexuality is the cause of "gay"suicides? What a strange notion.People suicide because they are so full of pain they want the pain to stop. It can be physical, intellectual, emotional or financial or a combination of variables and it varies from individual to individual.Your comment is foolish and without foundation
YOU didn't read the comment
YOU didn't read the comment carefully enough!
The comment said it wouldn't be surprising if NARTH and Courage had driven MORE homosexuals to suicide THAN TO heterosexuality.
In other words, by telling gay people that they are instrinsicly disordered and by setting them the impossible goal of changing something about themselves that they cannot change, organisations such as NARTH and Courage have contributed to many people feel so guilty, miserable, unworthy and desperate that they have chosen to kill themselves. The previous comment also suggested that the number of people who have felt that suicide was their only option is likely to be greater than the number of people who consequently pretended be straight and live a heterosexual life or found out that they weren't gay after all.
NARTH and Courage Why not
NARTH and Courage Why not contact them
Why would I want to do that? I am quite comfortable with my own sexuality, thank you.
NCR's editorial perspective
NCR's editorial perspective is obviously part of the problem, not part of the solution. Definitely not part of the truth.
Perpetuating the utter falsehood that Church teaching refers to *people* as "intrinsically disordered" is not only dishonest but is also the worst form of propagandistic "journalism"--but par for the course for NCR.
If I recall correctly, Jesus Himself, while "eating with tax collectors and prostitutes," never shied away from calling sin by its proper name. Tell me--did Jesus ever fornicate with his prostitute friends or extort tax money from people with his tax collector buddies???? Duh. Of course Jesus "welcomes" homosexuals just as he does all people--so does Jesus' Church. But don't for a minute think that either Jesus or His Bride, the Church, would ever "bless" same-sex fornication any more than he would "bless" fornication with the prostitutes he used to dine with.
And, for the record, the Church refers to the SIN of homosexual behavior as intrinsically, objectively disordered, not the homosexual PERSON.
SIN vs PERSON. In this
SIN vs PERSON.
In this context, a distinction without a difference.
If your father is an
If your father is an alcoholic you can reject the alcoholism but love your father.
So too with ourselves we can refuse to act on those impulses and attractions which will weaken our purity but still love and respect ourselves as children of God.
Same sex attracted people are no different they can cofidently know they are children of God and like the rest of us battle any temptations to purity.
I do reject alcoholism and
I do reject alcoholism and all the personal, familial, and social dysfunction associated with it.
Alcoholism is an "ism".
Sexual orientation is not.
Homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is a "given" --- from God, no less.
I so support responsible heterosexual behavior.
Why would I not support responsible homosexual behavior?
Joseph our sexuality is a God
Joseph our sexuality is a God given gift and it is clear from the way God designed the male and female body that this gift is meant to be fully consumated between a man and a woman not a man and a man or a female and a female.
NARTH does wonderful work in helping people with same sex attraction to understand this aspect of their life and develop strategies on how to deal with it in a positive and hopeful way
Same sex attraction can be a defensive resonse to present conflicts, unresolved childhood trauma or an unconscious drive to fulfill unmet homo-emotional needs stemming from childhood and adolescence
There is no evidence that it is genetically caused;rather the consensus is it is a combination of social, psychological and biological causes
The health risks associated with this lifestyle are considerable
Rather than abandoning our brothers and sisters in Christ to pursuing a lifestyle that limits their health and freedom of soul we should be encouraging them to approach NARTH and Courage two organisations that offer hope encouragement insight and support.
Please see Jim McCrea's
Please see Jim McCrea's comments above.
As for your remarks about God's design of the male and female bodies, please note that heterosexual couples are not unknown to engage in anal intercourse as part of their lovemaking. Moral considerations aside, this is fact.
As for "[t]he health risks associated with [the homosexual] lifestyle," please be more specific since it is well known that heterosexual couples also face "health risks associated with [their] lifestyle."
Sexual behavior can, indeed, relate to "lifestyle" --- but not per se to our God-given sexual orientation. Both homosexual and heterosexual couples can take measures to reduce/prevent transmission of STD's (even a husband is advised to use a condom when his wife has a yeast infection).
Please, do not confuse "lifestyle" with sexual orientation.
Not the same.
please don't pontificate on
please don't pontificate on something, which from what you've said, you know nothing about.
"Same sex attraction can be a
"Same sex attraction can be a defensive resonse [sic] to present conflicts, unresolved childhood trauma or an unconscious drive to fulfill unmet homo-emotional needs stemming from childhood and adolescence.
While I can see how traumatic sexual abuse/ rape has the potential to alter one's sexuality, an "unconscious drive to fulfill unmet homo-emotional needs," sounds like so much psychobabble to me. Just because your dad was a cold fish or the guys you grew up with were jerks doesn't mean you're more likely to be gay. No one compensates for a lack of male bonding by wanting to have sex with other guys.
Most of the gay people I know came from loving homes. They weren't abused, deprived, "converted" by gay porn, or ticked off because they never made the football team or the cheer leading squad. They're just gay.
The problem with the Catholic Church is that it only acknowledges the existence of three kinds of gay people: the kind that choose celibacy, the kind that look for sex in public restrooms, and the kind who molest adolescent boys.
The Church sees souls in
The Church sees souls in danger and is trying to help them avoid entering a lifestyle that will rob them of inner peace and limit the joyous freedom of soul that comes with purity of heart and mind.
## The CC shouldn't look at
## The CC shouldn't look at souls, but at persons. That in fact is what it does. This talk of souls is appropriate for Hebraic thought, because the anthropology of the Bible doesn't distinguish soul from body: man *is* a soul; he does not have a soul. Hylomorphic anthropology is inherited from Greek thought - it's not Biblical.
Christ did not die for souls, as though the body were rubbish; He died for men in the totality of their nature and being; sexuality included. IOW, for souls in the Hebraic, & not the Greek, sense
When I see,meet,know, or
When I see,meet,know, or imagine a couple, hetero or homo sexual, I don't imagine how they express their love physically. I'd never stop laughing if I did! A loving couple is so very much more. The hierarchy doesn't seem to get past it's adolescent fascination with genitals.
"Same sex attraction can be a
"Same sex attraction can be a defensive resonse to present conflicts, unresolved childhood trauma or an unconscious drive to fulfill unmet homo-emotional needs stemming from childhood and adolescence"
I think you may be finding yourself in the relms of the unprovable here! In fact I dare say there is at least as much evidence against this statement as for it.
"The health risks associated with this lifestyle are considerable"
What a crazy generalisation to make! Do you mean because all heterosexuals are promiscuous? Or are you simply commenting on sexual practices that you know nothing about, practices that will vary greatly from couple to couple (just like in heterosexual relationships)?
I'm sure you mean well but what you're doing is prejudiced. You're making sweeping generalisations about a whole group of people with relatively little in common. If only the workings of the human mind and the nature of human sexuality were as simple as you suggest! It's difficult enough to fully understand the workings of your own psyche and sexuality, don't expect to understand that of other people, people you haven't even met.
I feel the need to make a
I feel the need to make a crucial distinction; alcoholism is an addiction, homosexual tendency is a drive, There is a differenc and, I feel, a significant one. Yet, for so many, it seems that to think of homosexual activity as an addiction, but heterosexual activity differenty is acceptable. Not making a distiction between an addiction and a drive may simplify the argument for many, but it is a flawed approach and a diservice to the discourse. Peace and prayers
Joseph--so, I see now. You
Joseph--so, I see now. You apparently believe that when Jesus "ate with tax collectors and prostitutes", he was *affirming* fornication and extortion? If "SIN = PERSON", then it must be so...
Please see my response above
Please see my response above to "A crucial distinction" and figure out how it addresses your faulty reasoning.
(Clue for starters: Fornication and extortion are human acts. Sexual orientation is not.)
"Sexual orientation" is NOT
"Sexual orientation" is NOT what the Church teaches is sinful. Here we go with the sleight-of-hand again. Keep the terms clear.
Homosexual *behavior* is most definitely a human act. And most definitely a human SIN. As is fornication and extortion. So, I ask again, since it is *your* reasoning that is flawed--does Jesus condone fornication and extortion when "eating with tax collectors and sinners"????
I don't see any
I don't see any "sleight-of-hand" in my earlier explanation.
For the record, I believe that both heterosexual and homosexual intercourse (vaginal and anal) is sinful outside of marriage and, when gay marriage is not permitted, outside of loving, committed/lifelong, faithful/mutually exclusive relationship.
Perhaps you are being sloppy with definition of terms --- such as (for instance) your use of the word 'behavior'.
But that's not my fault.
Well, if you believe that
Well, if you believe that basically all intercourse is sinful outside of marriage, then we are in agreement, since there is no such thing as "gay" marriage.
That's the whole point! Man does not get to define what marriage is and what marriage isn't--GOD does. And God has made it abundantly clear that marriage involves one man and one woman. Period. NOWHERE in God's revelation to man is there *any* hint that God thinks two men or two women can be "married"!
Now, will you consider answering my question finally--does Jesus condone fornication and extortion when He eats with prostitutes and tax collectors?
Please do not misportray my
Please do not misportray my earlier remarks about intercourse outside of marriage.
I wrote in relevant part that I do not approve of intercourse, "when gay marriage is not permitted, OUTSIDE of loving, committed/lifelong, faithful/mutually exclusive relationship" (emphases added).
Therefore, contrary to your assertion, "we are [NOT] in agreement."
If God, as we believe, "get[s] to define what marriage is and what marriage isn't," then it is man who must fathom what God is saying in his defining. Man does this interpretation in various settings: civil law, tribal custom, religious belief/organization, etc.
What we accept as sacred scripture (OT and NT) traces its genesis to times and locales when/where the human family needed procreation/reproduction for simple survival --- against nature, against enemy. God works in time; God is not static. Therefore, given ancient time and place, I agree that (as you've noted) "NOWHERE in God's revelation to man is there *any* hint that God thinks two men or two women can be 'married'!"
However, God is Love, and our Creator has endowed the human family over centuries with the capacity to create new knowledge and arrive at new understandings and to apply this learning to new times and places. How do we incarnate/enflesh/realize this learning? How do we link it to the Two Greatest Commandments, i.e., to love God (in all his creation) and to love neighbor (as we love ourselves)?
Creation including sexual orientation is good because Genesis tells us that God was/is pleased with the fruit of his labor. Truth does not change, but man is forever challenged to grow in his knowledge and understanding of Truth. In the Catholic Church, we have a better educated and informed laity, religious, and ordained who have come to see the inherent goodness not only in sexual orientation --- gay and straight --- but also in its morally proper expression. We know increasingly that gay marriage (and committed relationship where gay marriage is not permitted by church and/or state) is good, that God, indeed, gives moral sanction to such unions.
Vatican II acknowledged the "sense of the faithful" in doctrinal development. This is orthodox teaching. Even relevant parts of canon law (212, 749, 750) recognize that a healthy church requires healthy intracommunication on various issues confronting the magisterium and the People of God.
Does Jesus, you ask again, condone fornication and extortion?
No.
But be careful in your reasoning. Don't confuse apples with oranges. Not the same.
Wow. You wrote: "Creation
Wow. You wrote:
"Creation including sexual orientation is good because Genesis tells us that God was/is pleased with the fruit of his labor."
Can't you see how specious this reasoning is? Apply the same reasoning to God's creation of the *angels*--weelll, gee, the angels ALL must be good because God "was/is pleased with the fruit of his labor." Or how about people born blind? Well, blindness must be good because God "lets" people be born blind???
Genesis doesn't *mention* sexual orientation as a "good". Genesis mentions it's NOT "good" for man to be alone and so God creates...another man?....nooope, obviously--no, man's "helpmate"--specifically in context, man's "marriage partner" is NOT another man but is a woman....
Believe me, Genesis does not support gay "marriage" and does not suggest same-sex attraction is something "good" created by God....
You said: "We know increasingly that gay marriage (and committed relationship where gay marriage is not permitted by church and/or state) is good, that God, indeed, gives moral sanction to such unions. "
"We" know this? Not so--the *Church* knows otherwise. God does NOT give moral sanction to homosexual behavior. God did not "invent" gay "marriage"--man did.
You said: "Vatican II acknowledged the "sense of the faithful" in doctrinal development. This is orthodox teaching. "
And just how did Vatican II *define* the "sense of the faithful"??? That's right--when *everyone* from the POPE AND THE BISHOPS down to the faithful all believe the same thing. You can't *have* the "sense of the faithful" without the Pope and bishops! (that's the "orthodox teaching" of Vatican II...)
You said: "Does Jesus, you ask again, condone fornication and extortion? No.
But be careful in your reasoning. Don't confuse apples with oranges. Not the same."
It is *exactly* the same--Jesus and His Church welcomes people suffering from homosexual orientation not *because* of this orientation but *despite* it. Just as Jesus did when eating with tax collectors and prostitutes.
Sorry for delay (electrical
Sorry for delay (electrical outage, pc glitches, etc.). Anyway, regarding your comments:
a. "Can't you see how specious this reasoning is?..."
Let's get back down to earth, OK? Lest you weren't aware, I was referring to the visible world (Gn 1:1-31; CCC 337-349), not to the heavenly realm. That said, are you suggesting that God was not pleased with his creation of the angels because some of them decided to disobey their Creator? If, as Genesis tells us, God was pleased with his visible creation, eventual sin notwithstanding, should we not conclude that God was also pleased with his angelic creation, their eventual sin notwithstanding? Let's not confuse creation with sin. God is displeased with sin, not with his creation.
As for blindness, congenital or otherwise, there are folks who would say that it has brought them (closer) to God, not from him. The church suggests as much (CCC 309-314).
How to explain/justify evil? Since I have no background in theodicy, I'll defer to philosophers and theologians in this area. Suffice it to say that none of the explanations I've seen would likely satisfy everybody. The church teaches that "God would not permit an evil if he did not cause a good to come from that very evil, by ways that we shall fully know only in eternal life" (CCC 324).
b. "Genesis doesn't *mention* sexual orientation as a 'good'..."
There are a lot of things that Genesis doesn't mention, for instance, planes, trains, and automobiles; the injunction to love one's enemies; engineering principles; the Incarnation; medical science; the law of gravity; ad infinitum. Yet God over time would gradually reveal himself, down to and including the gift of his Son to the human family. In addition, God has endowed man with the capacity to create/discover knowledge in the natural sciences, social sciences, philosophy, and theology. Theology is faith seeking understanding. We employ faith and reason. Religious doctrine is not static. While Truth does not change, our understanding and articulation of Truth must change since life --- including the life of the church --- is change. For me, the guiding principle and challenge can be found, inter alia, in Mt 22:34-40 and Jn 13:34-35. God's law of love, not prooftexting culturally remote and timebound biblical minutiae, should be our frame of reference.
c. "Believe me, Genesis does not support gay 'marriage'..."
I believe you, but see above.
d. "'We' know this? Not so --- the *Church* knows otherwise..."
The church is all of us, not just the pope and fellow bishops, much less those who would ignore the growing evidence (albeit incomplete) that sexual orientation, gay and straight, is real, not imagined, contrived, or changeable. Growing numbers of Catholics see no incompatibility between the Lord's gospel message, on the one hand, and a gay/lesbian couple's decision to enter into a committed, faithful, lifelong, and monogamous union, on the other hand.
We are witnessing doctrine "in the making," so to speak. The living Spirit works through all of us. Doctrine is dynamic, not static. In light of an educated and informed laity, professed religious, and ordained willing to consider new perspectives, I think the church's official teachers can learn from us as much as we can learn from them. As others have noted, learning is reciprocal; it must be seen in systems terms with "feedback loops". The church moves forward in time, and we are continually challenged to learn in this movement.
If God, as you've suggested, "invented" heterosexual marriage, God did so when human survival --- against nature, against enemy --- was at stake. Deciphering God's influence throughout history is much akin, I think, to unpeeling an onion. God's timeframe is not our timeframe. Revelation is always incomplete. The Spirit won't finish its work and we won't finish our learning until the end time. We see the Spirit at work in our growing understanding and appreciation of sexuality as part of God's way of leading us to Love itself. In human love --- including its sexual expression, I think the lover and the beloved experience something, however limited, of God's love. After all, we are said to be made in the image and likeness of our Creator.
e. "And just how did Vatican II *define* the 'sense of the faithful'?..."
Vatican II used the phrase 'sensus fidei', i.e., the "sense of faith" possessed by every Christian involved in the life of the church. "Each believer, by virtue of baptism," writes theologian Richard Gaillardetz, " has a supernatural instinct or sense of the faith that allows each to recognize divine revelation and to respond to it in faith. The infallibility of the whole people of God, however, does not refer to the individual exercise of this 'sensus fidei' but to the corporate belief of the whole people of God. Thus we must also speak of the sense of the whole faithful ('sensus fidelium'), namely, that which the whole people of God in fact believe. When the faithful are united in their belief, possessing a 'consensus' regarding a matter of faith, we can speak of a 'consensus fidelium'. It is in this situation, when in fact all the faithful are united in their belief, that the charism of infallibility is operative" (TEACHING WITH AUTHORITY, The Liturgical Press, 1997, pp. 233-34).
Therefore, contrary to your assertion, the "sense of the faithful" is not (in your words) "when *everyone* from the POPE AND THE BISHOPS down to the faithful all believe the same thing." What you have described is the 'consensus fidelium', i.e., when all the faithful (from pope on down) believe in the essentials of a doctrine. The 'sense of the faithful', on the other hand, reflects "unforced dialogue, the voicing of dissent, conflict, and the testing of time" (Terence L. Nichols, THAT ALL MAY BE ONE, The Liturgical Press, 1997, p. 318). The 'sensus fidelium' is process, not stasis. "I have made it a rule, ever since the beginning of my episcopate, to make no decision merely on the strength of my own personal opinion without consulting you (priests and deacons), without the approbation of the people" (Cyprian, quoted by Nichols, p. 18). "This also is in accord with the ancient principle of Roman law:...'What touches all, must be treated and approved by all'" (Nichols, pp. 18-19).
In addition to ancient ecclesial practice, we have pertinent provisions of JPII's 1983 Code of Canon Law:
+ Canon 212.3
"[The faithful] have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful..."
+ Canon 749.3
"No doctrine is understood as defined infallibly unless this is manifestly evident [i.e., is clearly established as such by the doctrinal proponent/s]."
+ Canon 750.1
"A person must believe...all those things...proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful..."
Finally, we need to remember Vatican I's doctrine that when a pope teaches 'ex cathedra' (a rare occurrence, indeed), "he possesses...that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy..." This teaching is clarified and confirmed in LG 12 of Vatican II: "The universal body of the faithful who have received the anointing of the holy one, cannot be mistaken in belief."
On the other hand (given the "creeping infallibility" suggested by your comments), we know that popes have been associated with heretical teaching and example:
+ Marcellinus (296-304) offered incense to the gods when ordered to do so by Roman authorities.
+ Liberius (352-66), when ordered by the Arian emperor, deposed St. Athanasius from episcopal office and sent him into harsh but temporary exile.
+ Vigilius (537-55) vacillated on the teaching of the Council of Chalcedon (451) and was excommunicated by a synod of African bishops.
+ Honorius (625-38) became an unwitting adherence of Monothelitism, the belief that there is only one (divine) nature in Christ; after his death, he was formally condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople (680).
(Source: Richard McBrien, THE CHURCH, HarperOne Publishing, 2008, pp. 102-103. More information on these popes can be found in McBrien's LIVES OF THE POPES, HarperSanFrancisco, 1997.)
CONCLUDING COMMENTS TO FOLLOW
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE f. "It
CONTINUED FROM ABOVE
f. "It is *exactly* the same --- Jesus and His Church welcomes people suffering from homosexual orientation not *because* of this orientation but *despite* it..."
Thank you for your clarification. We agree, then, that homosexuality per se is not sinful. We disagree about the issue of gay marriage. I'm assuming that you regard homosexuality as a genuine orientation, i.e., something that is real and, therefore, not imagined, contrived, or changeable. We disagree about the morality of gay sex. If I have misconstrued your views, please let me know.
Gay men and women do not "suffer" because of their sexual orientation, anymore than you and I would suffer because of our heterosexual orientation. If a gay man or woman suffers, it is because of prejudice/bigotry. Specifically, we know that ignorance can breed fear, and, of course, some people refuse to reconsider their views on a topic. Most of us, to a greater or lesser degree, want to stay in our "comfort zone". Most people feel uncomfortable with change, especially, I suggest, the kind of change that forces us to confront our most closely held beliefs and understandings derived from religious indoctrination. For some folks, such experience can be downright distressing.
If ignorance breeds fear, the latter can breed violence, verbal and/or physical. Despite Rome's attempt to nuance its teaching on homosexuality, the fact is most people ignore nuance. Thus, if the homosexual "condition" or "inclination" or "tendency" (take your pick) is "disordered", it must stand to reason that gay men and women are disordered. Even if, in fact, they are not. Even if, in fact, they live celibate lives, i.e., no sex.
I'm reminded of the expression "Open books, open minds". We must be prepared to challenge our assumptions and, yes, even our presumptions, religious or otherwise. God gives us the capacity to think, not just to absorb. One of my favorite bumper stickers is "QUESTION AUTHORITY". The health of church or state is jeopardized by passive/blind obedience, i.e., the noncritical submission to authority.
Recent revelations of episcopal arrogance/coverups/deceit/intimidation relating to reports of widespread clerical sexual abuse --- as well as of longstanding papal indifference and secrecy regarding same, should be more than enough reason to motivate Catholic pew sitters to be prepared, when necessary, to question ecclesial authorities' expectations, non-definitive (potentially fallible) doctrines, and existing church structures, processes, and functions.
Now is that time.
Unfortunately, you are not
Unfortunately, you are not grasping the concept of the "sense of the faithful" as taught by Vatican II.
FROM LUMEN GENTIUM 12:
"The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One,(111) CANNOT ERR in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the WHOLE peoples' supernatural discernment in matters of faith when "from the BISHOPS DOWN TO THE LAST OF THE LAY FAITHFUL" (8*) they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth. It is exercised under the guidance of the SACRED TEACHING AUTHORITY, in faithful and respectful obedience to which the people of God accepts that which is not just the word of men but truly the word of God.(112) "
I rest my case--in keeping with Vatican II, there is NO "sense of the faithful" that *excludes* the Magisterium.
You're learning, but you're
You're learning, but you're still not there.
I agree that the entire body of the faithful (this includes pope and fellow bishops, a point I apparently should have noted earlier) cannot err in matters of belief. I wrote as much.
The 'sensus fidei', i.e., "sense of faith", resides in each person involved in the life of the church. The 'sensus fidelium', i.e., "sense of the faithful", is process, not stasis --- as I wrote above. When the body of the faithful agree on the essentials of a doctrine, we have --- as I noted earlier --- the 'consensus fidelium', i.e., universal agreement on the essentials of an infallible doctrine, i.e., dogma.
Contrary to your implication, the "guidance of the sacred teaching authority" does not render moot pertinent provisions of canon law, to wit, canons 749.3 and 750.1. In other words, the church teaches (via its law) that the proponent(s) of a purportedly infallible doctrine bear the responsibility to make their case. This is a matter of ecclesial law.
Canon law does not override the magisterium, but the latter also does not override relevant canon law.
I suggest you rethink your leaning toward "creeping infallibility". It is not at all orthodox or traditional.
Heterosexuality is the cause
Heterosexuality is the cause of "gay"suicides? What a strange notion.People suicide because they are so full of pain they want the pain to stop. It can be physical, intellectual, emotional or financial or a combination of variables and it varies from individual to individual.
Regards,
Lisa Caponigri
Sorry to take you away from
Sorry to take you away from your original point but can I just point out, on behalf of all of us "disabled" people that blindness, like any other "disability", can indeed be good. Such things help make us who we are (stronger, weaker, more humble, more empathatic, able to see the world in a different way, more loving, more grateful, more spiritual, more determined, less determined...). "Disabilities" too are God-given gifts, gifts given for reasons best known to God and often far above human understanding.
Absolutely no kidding,
Absolutely no kidding, Joseph.
One only has to look at the open season against homosexuals based on the "sin vs person".
Love the sinner, hate the sin? Never, ever accomplished. In fact, it is a copout par excellence.
Thanks for stating a great insight.
Absolutely no kidding,
Absolutely no kidding, Joseph.
One only has to look at the open season against homosexuals based on the "sin vs person".
Love the sinner, hate the sin? Never, ever accomplished. In fact, it is a copout par excellence.
Thanks for stating a great insight.
Jesus managed to love us
Jesus managed to love us despite our sins not warranting such love. Are we not supposed to be Christ like in our behavior?
"...despite our sins not
"...despite our sins not warranting such love."
This comment does not reflect God's UNCONDITIONAL LOVE for each of us, regardless!!!
As JPII once remarked, we make our own hells.
God is our Liberator.
People can not even quote the
People can not even quote the editorial correctly: I got it memorized because I am queer. Its like this straight people: When I have sex it is an "intrinsically evil" act. The state of being queer is an "objective disorder."
Get it right.
Thank God our Church
Thank God our Church continues to stand for the Truth. Gay sex, just like any sex outside of marriage, is gravely evil. Deal with it. It will never change.
If the Church allowed gay
If the Church allowed gay people to get married, then there wouldn't be any sex outside of marriage.
That problem has a simple solution.
Sadly this is not the case.
Sadly this is not the case. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman open to the possibility of children who need the balance of a mother and father .Same sex unions can never offer that balance.
The same sex couple invariably end up being a counterfeit copy of the male female union with one partner adopting the "wife" role and the other the "husband" role.
You have legal tender and counterfeit tender No matter how good the counterfeit it would never make sense to give it the same legal ststus as real money to do so would be disastrous for an economy It is the same with the push tp legalise same sex unions it will not be good for society and it undermines marriage and family life.
Anyone who has worked with troubled adolescents know that invariably many have had poor or absent realtionships with one or both parents. Sometimes this can lead to gender identification problems which can be worked through with counselling.
Instead of locking oneself into a counterfeit marriage it is wiser to explore and understand the nature and source of your same sex attraction and give serious thought to the possibilty of living a fulfilled life full of enduring satisfying platonic friendships .NARTH and Courage would be of invaluable assistance and never forget the power of prayer. Cardinal Newmann was a man who knew the art of friendship why not pray to him to assit you on your journey? God keep you in His love always.
"Marriage is the union of a
"Marriage is the union of a man and a woman open to the possibility of children who need the balance of a mother and father."
So much for straight married couples who cannot conceive (no matter how "open" they may be) --- but can adopt, just like single straight folks, just like single gay folks, just like --- well, just about anybody willing to give the love, time, and effort to helping parentless children grow up into mature, responsible citizens.
NARTH is pseudoscience.
As for Courage, well, different strokes for different folks. Most folks, I suspect, want to share life with that special loved one, be it in a gay or straight marriage or committed relationship (where bigotry forbids gay marriage).
"Calling someone
"Calling someone “intrinsically disordered” may serve to fit them into a neat theological container, but it is a useless and insulting designation to those who know their children or friends as whole and healthy humans who have much to offer life in general, and each other, not least committed and long-term love."
Not to mention all those FULL-TIME, MALE, ORDAINED employees who still refuse to COME OUT and take on the institution that hired them in the first place. What price for job security? Eternal COGNITIVE DISSONANCE and a life in the ecclesiastical CLOSET?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bishops
http://www.traditioninaction.org/RevolutionPhotos/A102rcRainbowVestments...
Blessed John Henry Newman, patron of gay cardinals, pray for THEM!
From the article... "It is
From the article...
"It is becoming more apparent each year that the church eventually will have to confront the reality of homosexuality -- the experience of individuals and families and the growing understanding by human science of different sexual orientations -- with something more credible than dehumanizing phrases."
...What is more credible than the TRUTH? The TRUTH is that homosexual actions are intrinsically disoredered and evil.
What is becoming more apparent each day is the the National Catholic Reporter is moving further away from Catholic teaching.
"...the National Catholic
"...the National Catholic Reporter is moving further away from Catholic teaching."
Yes, it's called 'Catholic doctrinal development' in response to guidance from the Holy Spirit.
We all need to be very
We all need to be very careful Recognising the Holy Spirit takes daily prayer and humility. We need to be patient and look for the fruits.We must never forget Jesus' promise He will never allow the gates of hell to prevail aginst His church.
Put your trust in Jesus Joseph and remember the devil is a brilliant impersonator and deceiver.
I say this not in arrogance but because in my youth I often mistook the impulse of my own ego for the impulse of the Holy Spirit deceived by the emotional glow and rush of energy and warmth I felt It took reflection and prayer for me to begin to discern the impulse of the Holy Spirit was a calmer and less angry movement of the heart and mind
God Bless
Thank you for your word of
Thank you for your word of caution.
I turn 62 in two days, and my comments reflect the official teaching of the church on doctrinal development.
If I turn out to be wrong morally, I believe in a God of unconditional love, a God who will not consign me to hell because of my views.
Perhaps unlike you, I do see healthy doctrinal development in this area.
I too believe firmly in a God
I too believe firmly in a God of unconditional love Joseph and although we have divergent views on this issue I wish you every blessing on your journey
Your sister in Christ
Post new comment