On Tuesday, January 24th, Pope Francis sat down with the Associated Press. It seems the interview covered a range of topics, but for this post, I want to focus on some remarks he made about homosexual sex. I'll describe what was said, and then share a handful of thoughts on what is notable about Francis's words.
The headline at the AP website nicely encapsulates the key takeaway from the initial interview: "Pope says homosexuality not a crime". Many activists praised Francis for speaking out against laws which criminalize LGBTQ identity and/or behavior.
The scope of legal persecution of LGBTQ persons
This Human Rights Watch site reports that "at least 67 countries have national laws criminalizing same-sex relations between consenting adults." The site includes a global map which indicates that those countries are primarily in the developing world, with clusters of nations in Africa, the Middle East, southern Asia and Pacific Island nations. There also is a cluster in the Caribbean region. Many but not all of the countries on the map are Muslim-majority or have significant Muslim populations. The Caribbean cluster presumably is majority Christian. On the other hand, this map at a Pew Center site shows that the traditional Catholic and Protestant nations of Western Europe, North America and, to some extent, South America are among the most tolerant (or least intolerant) sections of the world when it comes to legal restrictions imposed on LGBTQ persons.
Human Rights Watch summarizes the range of legal persecution:
Legal sanctions against same-sex conduct vary in scope and application. In some countries, only specific sexual acts are punished, while in others the laws are more general, often vague and open to varying interpretation. Sentences range from fines to life imprisonment and even the death penalty. In some countries, law enforcement agencies aggressively pursue and prosecute people suspected of being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. In others, the laws are rarely enforced but nonetheless have severe consequences for LGBT people, serving to justify discriminatory treatment and impeding LGBT people’s access to employment, health services, and police protection.
The church's response in recent times
At least since John Paul II's papacy, the Catholic Church's teaching authorities have tried to strike a balance: the church's traditional teaching is that homosexual sex is sinful; consequently, the church doesn't support (and has frequently opposed) the legalization of same-sex marriage. At the same time, the Holy See in recent decades has defended human rights for LGBTQ individuals.
But support for human rights hasn't always been observed at national-conference levels, especially in countries which continue to pursue the legal persecution of LGBTQ persons. For example, in 2014, Uganda's national conference decided to "reserve judgment" on a bill which "originally proposed the death penalty for 'aggravated homosexuality,' but first-time offenders will now face life in jail, instead of an originally proposed 14-year prison term." More recently, Ghana's national conference came out in favor of legislation which
broadly targets LGBTQ+ people and purports to criminalize many of their basic freedoms of expression, assembly, and access to information. The penalties for violating the bill are drastic. Disseminating information about LGBTQ+ people can result in a five-to-ten-year prison sentence. Groups seeking to advance LGBTQ+ rights can be punished with six to ten years in prison. Funding or sponsoring vaguely defined prohibited activities can result in a five-to-ten-year sentence. Even without this bill, Ghanaian laws already create a hostile environment for LGBTQ+ people. The 1960 Criminal Offences Act criminalizes same-sex relations. Though rarely directly enforced, Human Rights Watch and local groups have documented how the law fosters a climate of violence and intimidation toward LGBT Ghanaians. Earlier this year, Human Rights Watch and Ghanaian groups also documented how authorities in Ghana use existing laws concerning unlawful assembly to target LGBTQ+ people for arbitrary arrests and other abuses.
What Francis said last week, and advocates' reactions
In this context of continuing criminalization of LGBTQ persons, and the failure of some bishops and conferences to support human and civil rights for them, Francis's remarks in the AP interview were notable:
Declaring such laws “unjust,” Francis said the Catholic Church can and should work to put an end to them. “It must do this. It must do this,” he said.
Francis quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church in saying gay people must be welcomed and respected, and should not be marginalized or discriminated against...
On Tuesday, Francis said there needed to be a distinction between a crime and a sin with regard to homosexuality. Church teaching holds that homosexual acts are sinful, or “intrinsically disordered,” but that gay people must be treated with dignity and respect.
Bantering with himself, Francis articulated the position: “It’s not a crime. Yes, but it’s a sin. Fine, but first let’s distinguish between a sin and a crime.”
“It’s also a sin to lack charity with one another,” he added.
LGBTQ advocates praised Francis for speaking out against anti-LGBTQ laws.
The pope’s comments didn’t specifically address transgender or nonbinary people, just homosexuality, but advocates of greater LGBTQ inclusion in the Catholic Church hailed the pope’s comments as a momentous advance.
The pope’s comments didn’t specifically address transgender or nonbinary people, just homosexuality, but advocates of greater LGBTQ inclusion in the Catholic Church hailed the pope’s comments as a momentous advance.
“His historic statement should send a message to world leaders and millions of Catholics around the world: LGBTQ people deserve to live in a world without violence and condemnation, and more kindness and understanding,” said Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of the U.S.-based advocacy group GLAAD.
New Ways Ministry, a Catholic LGBTQ advocacy group, said the church hierarchy’s silence on such laws until now had had devastating effects, perpetuating such policies and fueling violent rhetoric against LGBTQ people.
“The pope is reminding the church that the way people treat one another in the social world is of much greater moral importance than what people may possibly do in the privacy of a bedroom,” the group’s executive director, Francis DeBernardo, said in a statement.
Francis clarifies his remarks
We might acknowledge that Francis's words, as quoted in the AP interview, were a bit ambiguous. For example, when he is quoted as saying, "It's not a crime. Yes, but it's a sin", it's not entirely clear what "it" is: is he referring to same sex marriage, or sex between homosexual partners, or being an LGBTQ person, or any/all of the above?
James Martin, SJ, who has been doing inspiring and courageous work for many years now to make the Catholic church a more welcoming and inclusive place for LGBTQ Catholics, wrote to Francis, asking him to clarify his remarks. Characteristically, Francis responded with a hand-written note, written as one Jesuit to another, which is posted at Martin's Outreach site - both an image of Francis's note in Spanish, and an English translation:
...I wanted to clarify that it is not a crime, in order to stress that criminalization is neither good nor just.
When I said it is a sin, I was simply referring to Catholic moral teaching, which says that every sexual act outside of marriage is a sin. Of course, one must also consider the circumstances, which may decrease or eliminate fault. As you can see, I was repeating something in general. I should have said “It is a sin, as is any sexual act outside of marriage.” This is to speak of “the matter” of sin, but we know well that Catholic morality not only takes into consideration the matter, but also evaluates freedom and intention; and this, for every kind of sin.
And I would tell whoever wants to criminalize homosexuality that they are wrong.
What should we make of Francis's statements?
1. It's worth reiterating that remarks to reporters during a conversation or interview should be given considerably more leeway than the contents of an official document promulgated by the Holy See. If Francis wasn't crystal clear in his initial remarks to the AP, then we might reflect that most of us aren't always clear in our spoken conversations, either. What about Francis's handwritten note to James Martin? Presumably, he has and reflected on reactions to his interview, and put at least a bit of thought into what he scribbled on the piece of paper he sent to Martin. Nevertheless, it doesn't qualify as a teaching document (which is not to say that it doesn't say good and important things).It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.
But even if Francis wasn't saying something that hadn't been said before by church officials, for someone with his moral authority to say what he said surely is welcome.
3. In Francis's note to Martin, he did something else: he categorized gay sex as a "sexual act outside of marriage". In doing so, he simultaneously affirmed the sinfulness of homosexual sex, and denied the possibility of gay marriage. But he also stayed away from the language of intrinsic or objective disorders. In essence, he classified homosexual sex as "just another" form of sex outside of marriage. Maybe that's something. Do we catch a glimpse here of a shift in church teaching? Perhaps.
I will have more to say when I have some time, but as I see it, you view the glass as being 5% full when it is really 95% empty. Take your quote from the 1986 Letter to the Bishops (known in the gay community as the "Halloween Letter") in which you give a quote beginning, "It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action." Not bad as it stands, but the paragraph that immediately follows is this one:
ReplyDelete"But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase."
Gay people are defined by "behavior to which no one has any conceivable right." I don't think I am going too far in saying that same-sex sexual behaviors are officially considered to be mortally sinful (or as another Vatican document says, acts of "grave depravity") and those who willfully engage in them are destined to eternal damnation.
David, they say that, too, about sex between any hetero couple who aren't married in the eyes of the church. I think they need to re-think the whole mortal-not mortal binary. Even with heterosexual sex, most people would see a difference between a couple of single people who are living together but are not married, and being in an adulterous relationship which destroys a marriage, or maybe two of them, and maybe with children involved.
DeleteWe remember the old Baltimore Catechism illustration of the soul as a milk bottle: white bottle as being in the state of grace, black bottle as being in mortal sin and going to the bad place. I think most ordinary sin is varying shades of gray.
"I will have more to say when I have some time, but as I see it, you view the glass as being 5% full when it is really 95% empty."
DeleteI don't think you're wrong, in that Francis didn't really break any major new ground here. Most of what he said in that interview was reiterating what the church has said for quite some time already.
As the AP noted in its initial story, what seems to be new here is a pope forthrightly speaking out against these anti-LGBTQ laws.
Perhaps it's worth noting that how something is said, can be as important as the words that are used. And also that what is not said can be as important as what is said. I think Francis has been trying, for some time, to project a more welcoming "facial expression" and "tone of voice". And in this case, he said what he said without suggesting that LGBTQ persons are disordered, or that there is such a thing as 'just discrimination' against them.
Perhaps, as you say, that adds up to a 5% improvement.
"In essence, he classified homosexual sex as "just another" form of sex outside of marriage. Maybe that's something. Do we catch a glimpse here of a shift in church teaching?" It seems like it.
ReplyDeleteIs it my imagination, or was the church traditionally more condemning of male homosexuality than female/lesbian? I think that might have gone back to the days before they knew about haploid sperm and egg cells, and thought sperm by itself was complete.
Katherine - I am not sure about that distinction between gay males and lesbian women. I can see the old/flawed understanding of sperm might lead to that distinction. I hope that sort of thing is in the rear-view mirror now.
DeleteI do think that homosexual sex was viewed as a different sort of thing than extramarital sex between a man and a woman. Francis seems to be sort of blurring the distinction here, or perhaps suggesting it's a distinction without a difference.
Francis is either brave or fool-hearty to speak about sexuality in terms of crime and/or sin, given the wide variety of cultures and legal systems.
ReplyDeleteCurrently the USA has gone from the tradition Christian viewpoint of sex only within marriage to sex only within monogamous relationships. So pre-marital monogamous relationships are o.k. and serial monogamy by means of divorce is o.k. Most Christians now believe this. Homosexual relationships are o.k. if they are monogamous. Majority of Christians now believe this. Laws have been changed to reflect the changes in our cultural values. The official Catholic church teaching has not changed. Our laws criminalize monogamous relationships with under-age persons. Officially we prohibit prostitution.
Other countries recognized polygamy, prostitution, and child marriages.
In my limited experience from decades ago, things were very different in Latin America. One of my best friends as an undergraduate was a Cuban exile. In Cuba there were prostitutes. Boys when they became of age celebrated by going to the prostitutes. There were high class prostitutes, courtesans who were hostesses in clubs. When the wife of one prominent man died, he married one of the most beautiful courtesans, in the Cathedral with the bishop presiding and all the people rejoicing! My friend could not understand why we would not. Explain to me North Americans!
In graduate school I came to know a former priest from Peru. He had done research on prostitutes in Lima (for which he received much kidding!) He found out they often did not have sex with their clients. When a client came in, they welcomed him as eager sex partners. However, because macho men do not allow women to dominate a relationship, this often led to them spending a lot of time building up the man’s ego without any real sex.
That student told an interesting story of a priest headmaster in a wealthy co-ed high school. He summoned the parents of a male student who was way out of line in harassing the women students. The wife simply said: “No problem, father, we will hire our son a maid.”
Needless to say, all this legal (but sinful) behavior in Latin America does not sit well with our Puritan belief in monogamous relationships.
In traditional Catholic morality which focused on sinful acts, prostitution was tolerated as a necessary evil. That morality never considered the relationships involved in prostitution for either the men or women involved. The participants were simply advised to go to confession before receiving communion.
The Vatican is adapting to the modern world in its increasing condemnation of war, arms sales, prostitution, and now laws against homosexuals and homosexual behavior.
However, all this is being done with very little rethinking of the relationship of acts to persons, relationships, and institutions. We need a complete rethinking of moral theology.
"Needless to say, all this legal (but sinful) behavior in Latin America does not sit well with our Puritan belief in monogamous relationships."
ReplyDeletePersonally I will take our Puritan belief in monogamy rather than a system where woman are always "less than" and dependent on a relationship with a man, either to marry them or pay them for sex.
I agree with you that we need to rethink the relationship of acts to persons.
The above is in reply to Jack's comment.
DeleteThe Church, imo, is entirely too hung up on the distinction between sinful sex outside of marriage and ok sex within marriage.
ReplyDeleteI can cite a few horror stories I've heard about marital sex that seems pretty sinful to me, fraught with kinks that involved humiliation, coercion, or even harm.
Istm that sex between consenting adults, gay or straight, is sinful or not depending on the degree of kindness, respect, and love the parties extend to each other.
If Jim and Pope Francis and other clergy want to use their bully pulpits to lower the boom on what happens where between whom and for what purpose, they can have at it. I'm not going to applaud them just because they draw the line at imprisoning or stoning the "sinners."
Off topic: Prayers please for Matthew, our neighbor two doors down, who died this weekend. He left behind his girlfriend, Justice, and infant daughter, Oakleigh. So many broken people involved in this, I can hardly think about it.
Jean, prayers sent for your neighbors, especially for his young family.
DeleteI don't get the idea that either Pope Francis or Jim are trying to preach from a bully pulpit. Rather I think Pope Francis is trying to get an off-ramp from some punitive attitudes of the past.
I agree with you that it is possible for sex within marriage to be abusive (and therefore sinful). And I think consenting sex outside of marriage can be dependent on agency, intent, and relationship as to rightness or wrongness.
Thank you for the prayers.
DeleteI am sorry, but I don't see much tolerance in calling for lifting anti-gay laws while maintaining the blanket condemnation of homosexual activity under any and all circumstances. It's that status of homosexual sex being sinful that spurs the laws making it punishable.
It's fine for the Church to hold up permanent monogamous heterosexual marriage with as many kids as can be supported as the traditional ideal for marriage. But I think it needs to stop actively condemning everything else.
Human Rights Watch In others, the laws are rarely enforced but nonetheless have severe consequences for LGBT people, serving to justify discriminatory treatment and impeding LGBT people’s access to employment, health services, and police protection.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Church in the US refuses employment to gays who have married. Some refuse employment to gays who don’t choose to hide their sexuality. It fires single women who are pregnant, often leaving them without an income and sometimes without health insurance. And causing some to opt for abortion before their condition is known so that they don’t lose their job - and their healthcare insurance - so desperately needed by lower income women who have to support a new baby. Women staff in the church are usually in schools and on parish staff, and the salaries are usually pretty low - although not low enough to qualify for most assistance programs. Too low to pay for health insurance out of pocket and too low to pay for the costs associated with birth, and too low to cover all the health costs of babies, and way too low to cover the cost of childcare, now over $20,000/ year in most large metropolitan areas. And nobody willingly hires a pregnant woman whose church employer has fired her for “ immorality “.
Whose sin is greater?
The gravest sins here are those committed by the Catholic institutions, justified by Catholic moral doctrines. .
The American bishops also support a twisted notion of “ freedom of religion” in the US that allows anyone to discriminate against gays - in providing services, and, by extension, employment, housing etc - if it violates that individual’s personal religious beliefs.
Is the pope ignorant of the Catholic bishops complicity in supporting this? Is he aware of the role the Catholic Supreme Court justices are playing in this? I’m guessing that he probably is unaware of America’s principle of separation of church and state, and thus also not aware of how America’s bishops work to to impose their Catholic religious beliefs on all Americans. And the American bishops sure aren’t going to enlighten him on these matters.
Prayers ascending for Matthew, Justice, and their daughter. There are so many who live on the edge of the abyss, where tragedy can strike at any time. Why doesn’t the Catholic Church stop stressing about peoples’ sex lives and stress more about the sins of the institutions, including those of the church, that too often contribute to tragedy.
From what I’ve been told, many Catholic priests, perhaps the majority, have common- law wives, and children, living with them in Latin American countries, especially in the rural areas. This is also common in Africa, and even fairly common in Europe. The people aren’t bothered because they consider this to be a more normal lifestyle than celibacy. In marriages too, traditions may differ. A friend married a very handsome, very charming, very wealthy man from South America, where they lived after marrying in the US. . Both were Catholic and had a lavish nuptial mass for their wedding. Eight years later he did not understand why she was upset, returned to the US with their children, and divorced him, after she learned that he had a mistress. He told her that this was the norm there, and her women friends and family there told her this also. They accepted it, but she did not.
"The Catholic Church in the US refuses employment to gays who have married. "
DeleteThat's not the national policy of the Catholic Church in the US. Nor is it the policy of every diocese. And even dioceses that have tried to enforce that policy have received pushback from individual religious orders and school communities. The fact is, the Catholic church in the US doesn't have a consistent policy in this regard. And none of this pertains to Francis's comments, which were about what is legal in a particular country or jurisdiction, as opposed to what the church permits in its own institutions. Irrespective of laws, whether or not a religious entity should employ someone who actively disagrees with the entity's moral teachings is a complicated consideration.
"It fires single women who are pregnant, often leaving them without an income and sometimes without health insurance."
DeleteDoes it? I'm not a regular reader of NCR, so perhaps I've missed some recent instances of this, but I'd be really surprised if this is a widespread policy. I can believe that there might be individual parishes or schools that might do this, but I doubt this happens very often.
Around here, the pregnant Catholic high school students are kept in school and encouraged to carry their child to term. Naturally, not every student would choose to do that.
"The American bishops also support a twisted notion of “ freedom of religion” in the US that allows anyone to discriminate against gays - in providing services, and, by extension, employment, housing etc - if it violates that individual’s personal religious beliefs."
DeleteSorry, I am not sure what is being referred to here. My understanding is the opposite: that the church opposes discrimination against gays for housing and employment.
"From what I’ve been told, many Catholic priests, perhaps the majority, have common- law wives, and children, living with them in Latin American countries, especially in the rural areas."
DeletePerhaps that is so. I doubt it is as universally accepted, and problem-free, as may be suggested. And what is normative culturally may not be what is legal, nor what is virtuous. I would say, someone who has made a vow of continence in mature freedom can reasonably be expected to at least try to keep his/her vow.
If a priest around here let it be known that he has a 'common-law wife', or a same-sex partner, I think our Church Ladies - some of whom are men - would rise up as one and escort him off the property, and then have the locks changed on the rectory door. And then fire off letters of complaint to the chancery. That's our culture. Is that better or worse than the more tolerant Latin cultures? I'm open to suggestions.
If a priest around here let it be known that he has a 'common-law wife', or a same-sex partner, I think our Church Ladies - some of whom are men - would rise up as one and escort him off the property, and then have the locks changed on the rectory door. And then fire off letters of complaint to the chancery.
DeleteIf anyone did anything remotely like this, it would hit the newspapers. The reality, as with abuse of minors, is that people have their suspicions but usually no hard evidence, and they rarely talk about it and certainly don't do anything about it. Maybe a few write letters to the bishops, but I suspect unless the bishop receives several unrelated letters, he probably does nothing about it.
Most US priests are pretty discreet about their indiscretions. As one put it the rule is never do anything indiscreet within a hundred miles of your parish.
Delete"That's our culture. Is that better or worse than the more tolerant Latin cultures? " The only people the Latin culture is more tolerant of are the men, at least it seems like it. I don't think they cut cut the women the same degree of slack, it's the old "madonna/hooker" syndrome.
DeleteA few years back there was a priest in our archdiocese, and it came out that he had a family on the side. He was laicized rather quickly, and was told that his vocation now was to raise his kids and support their mother.
Also several years back one of the parish grade school teachers who was single at the time got pregnant. She is still a teacher there. She and the baby's father ended up getting married, but that was after the baby was born. Things seem to be going well for them. My point is that things could vary from place to place, but most parishes and priests try to be supportive of mothers and families. At least that is my observed experience.
Where things seem to go sideways is in the treatment of LGTQ people. We've all heard about gay or lesbian people who got fired from their church-related jobs. So as to Jim's comment at 12:51, um, no, they don't oppose discrimination against gays for employment. Especially when they are the employers.
So while Pope Francis statement and his later clarifying letter to Fr. Martin may not seem like a big deal, or a departure from the past, I think it actually is. It's definitely a shift in the wind direction.
Jim, why can one diocese fire gays or pregnant single women at will? Why is there not one policy? Is Francis just trying to decentralize power even when the local bishop abuses it - or allows priests to abuse theirs ? We’ve all known of the scandal of a bishop excommunicating members of a progressive group of Catholics ( Future church? We are church?) I think Katherine lived in that diocese for a while. Why should Catholics be subject to the whims and preferences of bishops who abuse their authority ? Why can Pelosi be denied communion in her California diocese but but not in the Washington DC diocese? Why are parish priests allowed to deny girls the opportunity to be altar servers and women the right to be lectors?
DeleteDo you think this is right? Moral? Why should a Catholic have to move to a different diocese in order to receive communion?
Being Catholic means being subject to the ideas and whims and morality of random bishops, parish priests, and popes at different times.
Roe opened the dore to government imposing Catholic religious beliefs on tens of millions of people who don’t share them. There are multiple lawsuits now by other religious groups because their freedom of religion is being denied. The cake baker case hadn’t really been resolved at the national level, which ruled in his favor based on a stupid wording error in the state’s decision. But similar cases are headed to the Supreme Court. Will they open the door to employment and housing discrimination due to a distorted understanding of religious freedom? The SC decisions regarding prayer on public school grounds by a staff member and opening the door to tax money use in religious schools represent a possible true future threat to genuine religious freedom in our country. And the American bishops are fully behind this threat.
WHY do some always have a knee jerk reaction to defend these sins of the church? I can understand that deacons are not free - they have unfortunately pledged some kind of obedience to their clerical superiors rather than to God. Those who speak out against the church’s sins risk their positions. I guess they would rather be obedient to men than to accept the long shot risk of becoming a saint someday. Too many forgot that an thousands and thousands of young teens and children were mokested because priests and bishops who knew kept their mouths shut - because of a vert wrong vow of obedience to a man. Forgetting God. Maybe not stick their necks out to say the right thing. Especially since it sometimes takes centuries before the excommunications are lifted and the canonization process begins. No glory in it now. But they also aren’t required to defend when a church action is not defensible - they could simply say nothing.
The common- law wife traditions in Latin America and Africa don’t cause scandal apparently. The priests who have “wives” are accepted because the people think it’s a better - more normal - lifestyle for the priests. US Catholic culture reflects both Jansenism and the country’s puritan roots. Hidden wives are kept hidden. There was an interesting story about a NewYork priest who died last year, considered a hero by the people he served. He had a lot of money - and left millions to the son that most of his parishioners knew nothing about.
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/a-bronx-priest-left-a-towering-legacy-7-million-and-a-son/#:~:text=After%20he%20died%20in%20October,that%20priests%20must%20remain%20celibate.
Jim, you say: "My understanding is the opposite: that the church opposes discrimination against gays for housing and employment."
DeleteOn what do you base your understanding?
In 1992, the CDF issued Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons. I think it is fair to say the document makes it clear that the Church opposed any anti-discrimination laws protecting gay people.
From the Foreword: Recently, legislation has been proposed in various places which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. In some cities, municipal authorities have made public housing, otherwise reserved for families, available to homosexual (and unmarried heterosexual) couples. Such initiatives, even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society. Such things as the adoption of children, the employment of teachers, the housing needs of genuine families, landlords' legitimate concerns in screening potential tenants, for example, are often implicated."
Concluding Paragraph: "Finally, where a matter of the common good is concerned, it is inappropriate for Church authorities to endorse or remain neutral toward adverse legislation even if it grants exceptions to Church organizations and institutions. The Church has the responsibility to promote family life and the public morality of the entire civil society on the basis of fundamental moral values, not simply to protect herself from the application of harmful laws (cf. no. 17)."
The official rationale of the Catholic Church as expounded in Catholic documents on these subjects is that anti-homosexual discrimination protections should be unnecessary because "good" homosexual persons will keep their orientations secret: The “sexual orientation” of a person is not comparable to race, sex, age, etc. also for another reason than that given above which warrants attention. An individual's sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.
Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be “either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing” (cf. no. 3), and hence worthy of public approval. It is from this quarter that one is more likely to find those who seek to “manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil statutes and laws” (cf. no. 5), those who use the tactic of protesting that “any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people... are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination” (cf. no. 9).
In addition, there is a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law."
People do not fit neatly into the Gay and Not Gay boxes that David's proffered snippets suggest. Many older gay individuals have "natural" children because they were in heterosexual marriages or relationships. Some gay men and women live with aged parents in subsidized housing. I can think of five people in situations like this that I know of, and I live in a cornfield. Public assistance in this case upholds family life, however much certain Christians don't want to deal with that.
DeleteThis bit is just laughable: "there is a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law." There are a) no entitlements on the basis of homosexual orientation and b) there are any number of heterosexuals who have sought partners for matters of convenience that the Church would not view as promoting family life in any way.
I wrote: "My understanding is the opposite: that the church opposes discrimination against gays for housing and employment."
DeleteDavid asked, "On what do you base your understanding?", and then provided some quotes from a 1992 document from the Holy See.
In 2019, when the Equality Act was being debated, some committee chairmen of the USCCB issued a briefing paper on the Act. It included this passage:
"Catholics oppose unjust discrimination or harassment that baselessly deprive any person of basic needs, goods, or dignity. Each and every human person is made in the image and likeness of God and, as such, bears inviolable dignity. The Church teaches that persons with same-sex attractions in particular must be “accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity...and that society is to avoid “unjust discrimination in their regard.” Similar principles can also apply to those experiencing gender dysphoria or feelings of gender incongruence. This means that Catholics support appropriate nondiscrimination policies, for example, those that support the right of every individual to decent employment regardless of their sexual inclinations."
Regarding church opposition to discrimination against LGBT housing applicants or tenants - I am not finding much out there. A little bit, but not much. Legally at least, it doesn't seem to be a major issue in the US.
I agree with you that it is high time for those Vatican documents from the JP II/Cardinal Ratzinger days to be succeeded by a new generation of documents.
I still hold that the church hasn't stayed still since 1986 and 1992. It may not be documented yet in teaching documents, but we are not in the same times now. Or so I hope.
"The common- law wife traditions in Latin America and Africa don’t cause scandal apparently. The priests who have “wives” are accepted because the people think it’s a better - more normal - lifestyle for the priests."
DeleteI think the religious sisters in Africa who have been more or less ordered to be the priests' "wives" may have a different view.
There is nothing culturally conditioned about hypocrisy, as when people publicly proclaim their adherence to X and then live out the opposite of X - it is a universal human failing.
"Jim, why can one diocese fire gays or pregnant single women at will?"
DeleteI can't speak for them. I don't think it's accurate that dioceses in the US "fire gays...at will". At least around here, no gay employees get fired for being gay. Some in some dioceses have been fired for entering into same sex marriage, which is contrary to what the church teaches. Dioceses are able to do this because there is Constitutional, legislative and case law which protects the state's anti-discrimination laws from encroaching too far on religious liberty. Churches are mission-driven organizations which aren't compelled to employ people who, pretty clearly, actively oppose the mission. Even so, it isn't mandatory that churches fire these folks. It seems to me to be the path of wisdom and prudence not to fire them.
"Is Francis just trying to decentralize power even when the local bishop abuses it - or allows priests to abuse theirs ?"
DeletePresumably, Francis isn't wearing blinders - he understands perfectly well that some bishops, and some national conferences, are not entirely with him on every matter. Apparently, he sees the risk of empowering them as being preferable to maintaining the ultra-montanism that has prevailed during most of my adult life - the ultra-montanism which produced, among other things, those CDF documents which David has been quoting in this thread.
Anne wrote, "I can understand that deacons are not free - they have unfortunately pledged some kind of obedience to their clerical superiors rather than to God. Those who speak out against the church’s sins risk their positions. I guess they would rather be obedient to men than to accept the long shot risk of becoming a saint someday."
ReplyDeleteYes, all of us who have made sacred promises either try to abide by them, or we don't. Any/all of us who are married understand this perfectly well: we either keep trying, or we don't.
I can say this with a clear conscience: when it comes to the promises I made on the day of my ordination: I try. I try not to be disrespectful when I criticize other people, whether or not they are church officials. When I disagree, and feel I should say so, I say so. I am sure I fail the test of charity in what I say here, but I do try.
I don't think I'm really sticking my neck out very far. I could be wrong, and perhaps by head will go bouncing and rolling across the carpeting here someday.
In this regard - people in church roles being able to say what they think - it's hard to describe how different things are now, compared to how they were, say, 18 years ago. (That's when I was ordained, so I can't really say first-hand what it was like before that.) Bishops like McElroy, Cupich and Stowe feel at liberty to urge the church to change its pastoral approach, and try to provide a theological basis for it. That sort of thing didn't happen during the days of JPII.
Jim, you said above: "In 2019, when the Equality Act was being debated, some committee chairmen of the USCCB issued a briefing paper on the Act. It included this passage . . . . " I hate the term "cherry picking" (which was wildly overused on Strange Notions when I participated there) but you pluck quotes from documents that, in their entirety, render the selectively quoted passages meaningless. Your document makes it clear that the Catholic Bishops strongly opposed the Equality Act. Also, they argue that gay people are not seriously discriminated against:
ReplyDeleteHowever, “LGBT” people are not subject to systemic discrimination on the scale that has historically warranted the creation of a new federal policy, such as was necessary when the Civil Rights Act was passed. Widespread patterns of segregation or denial of basic goods, services, or opportunities to people who identify as “LGBT” are not evident. On the contrary, “LGBT” people today are often held in high regard in the market, as well as the academy, local governments, and media. Some studies suggest that people who identify as homosexual earn higher incomes than the national average.
The Church always opposes "unjust discrimination," but it reserves the right to define what is "unjust." For example:
Homosexual persons, as human persons, have the same rights as all persons including the right of not being treated in a manner which offends their personal dignity (cf. no. 10). Among other rights, all persons have the right to work, to housing, etc. Nevertheless, these rights are not absolute. They can be legitimately limited for objectively disordered external conduct. This is sometimes not only licit but obligatory. This would obtain moreover not only in the case of culpable behavior but even in the case of actions of the physically or mentally ill. Thus it is accepted that the state may restrict the exercise of rights, for example, in the case of contagious or mentally ill persons, in order to protect the common good. [Italics added]
The Church argues that "homosexual persons" should not be discriminated against for their orientation alone, but as I pointed out above, Church-approved "homosexual persons" do not openly identify as gay and do not engage in homosexual behavior ("objectively disordered external conduct").
You say: "I agree with you that it is high time for those Vatican documents from the JP II/Cardinal Ratzinger days to be succeeded by a new generation of documents."
I continue to quote these documents because I believe they still reflect the official Catholic position. I have not seen any high-level documents (say from bishops or above) that seriously modify any of the basic positions from the Catechism or the CDF documents from the 1980s. What may have changed is the tone. We probably won't see the Church comparing gay people to people with contagious diseases or the mentally ill, but the underlying principle of nondiscrimination applying solely to orientation but not to homosexual behavior (the latter being “intrinsically disordered," “in no case to be approved of," and "behavior to which no one has any conceivable right"). That all applies to someone like, say Pete Buttigieg (openly gay, married to a man, raising adopted children).
Pete Buttigieg was a Catholic. He was valedictorian of his Catholic high school class. His parents taught at Notre Dame. However, he and his husband and child are now members of the EC. He’s an extremely intelligent man and fully understands the harm that would be done to his child in the RCC, in being taught that his parents are disordered individuals, and unrepentant about the horrible sin of loving one another. I can’t imagine why any gay person would raise a child in the Catholic Church - a church that teaches that gay people, as “intrinsically disordered”, are the worst kind of sinners if they express love physically, and second class human beings in the eyes of the church. Women have a similar status in the church, but are not punished because of whom they love. As long as there is no physical lovemaking before marriage. Or use contraception. But, like those who are gay, they are punished for being who they are - female- also an intrinsic state of being that means they can be denied access to a sacrament. It’s not really surprising that so many young adult women have indicated in surveys that they have left the RCC because they are second class members of the Catholic Church. They refuse to raise children in the Catholic Church because of the church teachings that women are inferior to men.
DeleteIn both cases (gay sex and premarital sex) the church goes back to the notion that sex is meant for procreation. Marriage is meant for procreation.The church belatedly, very belatedly and grudgingly, finally conceded that marital sex may also serve as a unitive element in the marriage, not just procreative. The church still insists that couples presenting themselves for marriage agree that they will have children, barring an insurmountable physical obstacle to conception. Thus it clings to its absurd ban on modern birth control, twisting itself into a pretzel to try to claim that NFP isn’t really birth control. The church’s views on marriage, women, and sexuality have damaged so many people - individuals - especially women and gays- and many marriages.
The church focuses on procreation as THE reason to permit “legal” sex, sanctioned by the church for a purely utilitarian motive - to birth more people - little Catholics. The church does not seem to understand that LOVE is the reason for marriage for most. I wasn’t at all sure that I wanted children when we married and I don’t recall our progressive VII pastor ever telling us that it was a requirement. I learned that years later. I also learned later that he was among the priests who were disciplined for signing a full page open letter in the NYT protesting Humanae Vitae. The RCC’s aversion to women and sex dates way back, starting with Paul, continuing through Augustine - Eve, original sin, concupiscence etc, - and other early church fathers, to the present day. Gays cannot physically procreate, but they can be parents - because of the love they share and the desire to share that love with a child or children. But the church will splutter that they are consistent - because all non- procreative sex is prohibited (except for NFP which is intended to avoid procreation but makes lovemaking more difficult), along with all sex outside of marriage - and they refuse to accept the validity of gay marriage while denying sacramental marriage to gay people.
I think Eve Tushnet, who occasionally writes for Commonweal, and her partner are raising a child in the Church. Their navigation has had its problems, even though I believe they have opted to remain celibate. Anyone interested in her experiences can google her and find things she has written about this.
DeleteIt was suggested after I had my tubal ligation that the Catholic response to an unwanted pregnancy after age 45 would have been prayerful abstinence if NFP couldn't be trusted. Certainly, women prone to problem pregnancies had to "give it up to God" in earlier times because there just wasn't another recourse. Taking that road as a penance is not without huge stumbling blocks or possibly damage to the family life that the Church purports to support above all else.
I'm not sure that men who at least profess lifelong celibacy quite appreciate what they're asking of others. As I understand it, celibacy is a charism and not something you can expect will elevate the soul of those who are pressured to take it on.
TMI, I suppose.
I think it's easier to not ever start than to start and have to stop. With me, one Cheet-O and the box is gone.
Delete"I hate the term "cherry picking" (which was wildly overused on Strange Notions when I participated there) but you pluck quotes from documents that, in their entirety, render the selectively quoted passages meaningless. Your document makes it clear that the Catholic Bishops strongly opposed the Equality Act."
DeleteThese passages are not cherry-picking. I'm providing quotes which are germane to the topics being discussed. You challenged my assertion that the church opposes discrimination against LGBTQ persons (is there a more succinct way to refer to this group? I guess I could say "gays", but I don't want to offend or exclude anyone) when it comes to housing and employment. So in response, I provided a quote which states that the US bishops oppose employment discrimination against this group. That is not cherry-picking. It is an on-point citation.
To be sure: that document says many other things that you (and I) would find uncongenial. The document's claim that " “LGBT” people are not subject to systemic discrimination on the scale that has historically warranted the creation of a new federal policy" strikes me as tendentious and certainly open to criticism. (FWIW, I think it's likely that both 'positions' are true: the bishops may be right that LGBTQ persons have, as a group, achieved a measure of social acceptance and prosperity; I think it's likely to be equally true that many of them continue to receive slights and discrimination which heterosexual persons aren't subject to.)
The document presents the reasons that the bishops oppose the Equality Act. A major reason is because of the Act's narrow construal of religious liberty. Catholic bishops aren't the only ones who have that concern; it's probably the primary reason the Act still hasn't passed. They also give other reasons - for example, concern that it might prevent parents from having a say in their teens' decisions to undertake gender-transition medical treatment.
I don't find anything in that document that indicates that the bishops oppose the Act because they think it is "just discrimination" for employers and landlords to discriminate against LGBTQ persons in housing and employment; and I provided a quote which states, pretty clearly, that they don't support "just discrimination" when it comes to employment.
Pete Buttigieg and his husband Chasten adopted twins. Of course there was plenty of snark about that in the media, especially about he and Chasten taking paternity leave. But adoptive parents have been granted paternity leave (where it exists) for a long time.
Delete"I continue to quote these documents because I believe they still reflect the official Catholic position."
DeleteI don't think you are entirely wrong in thinking that. It's clear to me that, in the US, there still are a lot of "Benedict bishops" who likely are committed to what those 30- and 40-year-old documents say. Those bishops might still constitute a majority in the US conference. In the course of our discussion, it's dismayed me how "un-fresh" the US bishops have been on this set of topics; nothing issued as a conference, from what I can tell, since 2006.
But on the other hand: there also are bishops in the US who clearly have turned the page on the JPII/Ratzinger era which led to those Vatican documents you continue to cite. I live in the diocese, and serve, of one of those bishops, and there are others - certainly Cardinal McElroy would be near the top of that list. Francis has cultivated them - the list would include the Americans he has made cardinals. And Francis himself is trying to set a new tone for the global church.
Perhaps what I'm describing isn't good enough. But these are steps in what I consider the right direction. That's worth acknowledging.
"I wasn’t at all sure that I wanted children when we married and I don’t recall our progressive VII pastor ever telling us that it was a requirement. I learned that years later."
DeleteSame here.
When we got married I don't remember that having children was particularly emphasized during marriage prep, but it is written into the wedding vows: "Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?” This can be interpreted not necessarily that you plan to have children, but if it happens, planned or not, that the couple accepts them as coming from God.
DeleteIt is grounds for an annulment if one of the couple states that they are not going to have children and the other wants to. Of course if neither wants to, neither is going to force the issue. I know Catholic couples who don't have children and both are fine with it.
Katherine, I believe that we were married the same year that you were. (1972). Our marriage prep consisted of three brief meetings with the young priest. Nothing formal, just casual conversations. I’m (almost) 100% positive that the sentence about children was not part of our vows. I suspect the pastor may have decided to leave it out. The pastor was the officiant for the wedding liturgy. The young priest never discussed it with us. Years later I learned that he had left the priesthood (I don’t know if he had permission or just walked away). I heard about it from an EC priest - who had officiated at his wedding.
DeleteIt is grounds for an annulment if one of the couple states that they are not going to have children and the other wants to.
DeleteI believe that non- consummated marriages can also be annulled. It’s more than a bit ironic that the church teaches that the perfect family was Mary and Joseph and Jesus. If the church is to be believed, then a perfect married couple never consummates their marriage and they have only one child - - somehow (( ignoring the multiple references to Jesus’s brothers and sisters, who are explained away as actually being cousins, in a not widely accepted definition of the Greek words for brother and sister - which are not translated as cousin). So the church clings to its teaching of “ blessed Mary, ever virgin” in spite of tte evidence against this. But the church is hung up on sex - which is obviously considered to be simply a necessary evil in order to continue the human race - and provide a legal outlet for male lust ( according to Paul, an unmarried man who apparently had no concept of “ making love” rather than lust). Thus, according to the church, the state of virginity is exalted as superior to non- virginity, so priests should not sully themselves by marrying and having sex. The church has actually canonized married people who decided not to engage in marital lovemaking. Since the church thinks that married, heterosexual sex is only tolerated - because children might be born - it obviously cannot approve of same sex love - and lovemaking.
I wouldn't think more, or less, of Mary if she and Joseph had other kids. But if that were the case, why would Jesus, while dying on the cross, have entrusted her to John's care? It makes more sense to me that the "brethren" of Jesus were step siblings, that Joseph had been a widower with older children when he married Mary. I think that is actually what the Orthodox believe.
DeleteBut be that as it may, there have definitely been some messed up ideas about sex in the church through the ages. And it's complicated, more than one thing can be true at the same time. Such as the fact that our own age has some pretty messed up ideas about sex. We don't hold the idea that sex is only for having children. But we (speaking generally of our time and place) don't hold the virtue of chastity or purity in any regard or understanding. We're all about consent as the only qualifier for sex being legit. But choosing a lifestyle of vowed chastity or singleness of heart, is legit as well.
The main reason the church’s distorted views of sex matter is because of the harm that has been done to so many people because of them.
DeleteFew Catholics adopt Jack’s form of Catholicism, which essentially totally ignores official Catholic teachings - those in the catechism, those in encyclicals, those in all of the documents of various levels cited by David. Jack below says that he focuses on the scriptures, primarily the psalms, via the Divine Office. The Office is liturgy, but not THE liturgy according to current Catholic practice.
I never had even heard of all the official levels David quoted.. When I have tried to get a clear answer from priests about how much of all these teachings - contained in thousands and thousands of documents, using millions of words - are “must believes”, they can’t answer. One priest only gave an answer - he told me that dogma must be accepted - contained in the apostles creed.
Anne said:
Delete“When I have tried to get a clear answer from priests about how much of all these teachings - contained in thousands and thousands of documents, using millions of words - are “must believes”, they can’t answer. One priest only gave an answer - he told me that dogma must be accepted - contained in the apostles creed.”
Well essentially all the priests that you have encountered agreed with me. The dogma that must be accepted is what is in the Liturgy, e.g. the Creed. Like myself, they (as most Catholics) pray the Liturgy as the norm of faith. They don’t spend their time reading Vatican II documents, papal encyclicals, or the latest document from some Vatican office, or even what Francis has been saying recently. I usually find myself much more educated about those things than they are.
You want to reduce Catholicism to a set of beliefs which you can reject and argue against.
That Catholicism is a strawman. It ignores the fact that most Catholics (including most priests) do not focus upon beliefs or even practices. Most Catholics experience their Catholicism as a lifestyle that they share with family and friends around the celebration of the Liturgy, even those who only go at Christmas and Easter, even those who know they disagree with popes, bishops, and clergy on some things.
The Catholic lifestyles that they share with some Catholics may be very different from other Catholic lifestyles.
My Catholicism of the Divine Office is only a more elite form of Catholicism such as that practiced by the clergy and many religious, and until recently only accessible to the highly educated. Although the Hours may be celebrated alone, they are NOT just another form of personal piety. They are now accessible to anyone with an electronic device.
It should be obvious that the documents quoted by David were written in a legal not a pastoral context. Their object was to influence legal policy. They were not meant to appeal to hearts of Catholics. I suspect their authors did not really care what the average Catholic thought of what they had written.
ReplyDeleteThe widespread finding of the consultation process has been that many, perhaps even most Catholics. object to themselves and others being treated as legal objects whether in regard to canon or civil law.
The fundamental reality for many Catholics is that the bishops have squandered their moral authority. Greenleaf subtitled his book Servant Leadership: A Journey into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness.
Greenleaf argued that it was as important for people to follow only servant leaders as it was for leaders to be servants, i.e., to have the human development of the people whom they serve as primary.
Ever since Vatican II, Catholics have heard enough of the Gospels on Sunday to recognize that Jesus behaved very differently from the religious authorities of his time. It was not simply that Jesus disagreed with them, but that he exercised his leadership in a very different way than they did.
The bishops seem to think that they can preach one thing on Sunday but act differently the rest of the week.
"It should be obvious that the documents quoted by David were written in a legal not a pastoral context. Their object was to influence legal policy. They were not meant to appeal to hearts of Catholics. "
DeleteI think they were meant to appeal to certain hearts: the people who happen to agree with them. And everyone else was expected to fall into line because those were the generals' orders.
Even Francis falls into those habits sometimes. Maybe that sort of thing can't be entirely reformed away.
"It should be obvious that the documents quoted by David were written in a legal not a pastoral context."
DeleteCorrect for the one titled Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons. Incorrect for Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.
I thought Catholics were obliged to accept documents from The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as authoritative (though not as authoritative as an encyclical or apostolic letter). See the rather limited list of CDF "canonical judgments and publications"; from 1981 to the present.
Here is something I have posted before (not sure if it was here) adapted from Richard R. Gaillardetz on levels of Church teaching and the required response of the believer:
Dogma - Assent of Faith [The believer makes an act of faith, trusting that this teaching is revealed by God.]
Definitive Doctrine - Firm Acceptance [The believer "accepts and holds" these teachings to be true.]
Authoritative Doctrine - "A Religious Docility of Will and Intellect" [The believer strives to assimilate a teaching of the Church into their religious stance, while recognizing the remote possibility of church error.]
Provisional Applications of Church Doctrine, Church Discipline and Prudential Admonitions - Conscientious Obedience [The believer obeys (the spirit of) any church law or disciplinary action which does not lead to sin, even when questioning the ultimate value or wisdom of the law or action.]
Do pronouncements from the CDF fall into the last category?
David - I am not am expert on the question of "levels" of church teaching, but I believe that, conceptually, a given document could contain a mixture of content that falls into any/all of those categories.
DeletePretty clearly, a bishop's pronouncement that Joe Biden should be allowed to receive communion in his diocese, or Francis's condemnation of laws that criminalize LGBTQ identity, are provisional applications of more fundamental principles. Are those principles rooted in doctrine? Natural law? Biblical revelation? Logic?
Ideally, an explanation is provided by the authority which gives the "root" of the prudential judgment. Sometimes, as in those CDF docs, the footnotes simply refer back to earlier, similar pronouncements from the same/similar agencies or authorities.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBecause of the role of the Divine Office in my life, my experience of the faith is very different from most Catholic laity and also from most Catholic clergy.
ReplyDeleteAs I said recently in another comment:
The ancient tradition of the church says that liturgy comes first, then belief.
Lex orandi, lex credendi (Latin: "the law of what is prayed [is] the law of what is believed"), sometimes expanded as Lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi (Latin: "the law of what is prayed [is] what is believed [is] the law of what is lived")
Another way of saying this is: legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi (the law of praying is to establish the law of believing)
Andrew Greeley expressed this well in his book on Religion as Poetry. He maintained that religion, especially Catholicism) works more like poetry (symbols, images, multiple layers of meaning) than like prose (philosophy or the sciences)
So in my experience as a lay Catholic what I believe is what I pray daily in the Divine Office which is essentially a rearrangement of and meditation upon the Scriptures.
I also have a great interest in spirituality defined as the study of how Christians have lived their lives. That arouse largely because of my experience of various spiritualities of religious orders, e.g., the spirituality of solitude and contemplation (Merton), the spirituality of communal life (the Benedictines) and the spirituality of mission (the Jesuits).
Along with some other social scientists I see religious orders as the movements within Catholicism, similar to Protestants sects, that have renewed Catholicism adapting it to various challenges: the Imperial Church, the collapse of Roman Civilization in the West, the rise of modern nation states in the West.
Church councils have also played a role in keeping the church together and moving it forward, but not the exclusive role that the history written by the clergy would have it. The reality is that religious orders, even though the male ones are now largely clerical, are essentially lay movements based on baptism not holy orders. Therefore, it is we laity (who formed religious orders) who have kept the Church renewed throughout the ages when time and again the clergy became corrupt through the pursuit of status, wealth, and power.
I might add that most of those religious throughout the ages have celebrated the Divine Office usually in the form of praying the psalms. That was probably a large reason why they did not compete with the clergy in providing sacraments and did not generate sects as in Protestantism.
While I have a great interest in spirituality, liturgy and scripture, I have little interest in systematic theology or religious education that springs from it because all of that has been corrupted because of clericalism. For example, moral theology has been corrupted by casuistry because it was built to deal with the confessional with its needs to reduce Christian life to a series of acts of various moral value.
Catholicism is in my opinion a bunch of Christian ways of living life as a disciple of Jesus rather than a bunch rules or intellectual propositions, or even membership in a local club.
Off topic - Thomas Reese has an article on the Eucharistic revival at NCR. It is the first of a series and it mentions the definition issue - the problematic explanation of transsubstantiation which we discussed on another thread.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncronline.org/opinion/guest-voices/eucharist-about-more-real-presence
« ….the bishops need to consult with experts who understand liturgical and theological thinking that has developed since the Second Vatican Council. Any attempt to return to the piety of the 1950s is bound to fail. In fact, some of the old piety that focused solely on the real presence was based on bad theology. The language of transubstantiation, dependent on Aristotelian metaphysics, is meaningless to Americans who do not learn Greek philosophy in school.
Since my critics often accuse me of heresy, before I go further, let me affirm that I believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I just don't believe in transubstantiation because I don't believe in prime matter, substantial forms and accidents that are part of Aristotelian metaphysics.
Thomas Aquinas used Aristotelianism, the avant-garde philosophy of his time, to explain the Eucharist to his generation. What worked in the 13th century will not work today. If he were alive today, he would not use Aristotelianism because nobody grasps it in the 21st century.
So, first, forget transubstantiation. Better to admit that Christ's presence in the Eucharist is an unexplainable mystery that our little minds cannot comprehend.
Second, remember the purpose of the Eucharist is not to worship Jesus.
Jim has essentially made the case here ( indirectly) for ignoring official teachings that don’t reflect modern understandings of science, psychology etc. Reese is saying the same thing about the STILL official teaching of transsubstantiation. Limbo was taught as official when I was growing up. So was No Salvation Outside the Church. The church still preaches that purgatory is real. Far worse, it still teaches that a pope can grant indulgences to get souls “out” of purgatory faster. That a pope - a human being - can do what only God can do. Then people are given magic formulae to use to shorten time in purgatory - the Divine Mercy prayers and actions are a recent example.
Is it any wonder that so many Catholics - no longer uneducated and totally dependent on the clerics to tell them what to believe - are cafeteria Catholics, if they are still in the pews at all?
"...Christ's presence in the Eucharist is an unexplainable mystery that our little minds cannot comprehend." Pretty much what I have always believed.
DeleteYeah, we're all cafeteria Catholics, including the pope and bishops. How could we not be? 2000 years plus is a long time. We can't possibly sort through everything that has been taught or believed during that time and we would drive ourselves nuts trying. We do the best we can. We engage with the things that make sense to us. Such as, purgatory makes perfect sense to me. I've known too many people who met sudden death, with no idea that this day was their last. I was almost one of those people myself. So, an intermediate state, of learning or purification, is a teacihng of God's mercy. Praying for the dead, or for a happy death for oneself, isn't magical thinking any more than praying for the living is.
As for the Divine Mercy devotion, the message is that mercy is a primary attribute of God, and that God wants our salvation even more than we ourselves want it. Which does make sense to me. I don't engage with the whole nine yards of any private revelation, including that one. But I do find the Divine Mercy chaplet useful as a way of entering into a meditative state of prayer. The same with observing an hour of Perpetual Adoration. It is an act of being in the presence of Jesus; of God. Jesus didn't tell us in scripture to adore him. But we do have the first commandment, and we pray the Gloria, which is a prayer of adoration and rejoicing, at Mass. So adoration is really kind of a basic thing.
Anyway, that's where I am. But other people are going to have their own way of engaging with belief.
My problem with Divine Mercy and similar isn’t with the prayers, it’s with the indulgences that they use to bribe people to do the whole ritual - the claim that human beings can influence how long a person might remain in the state called purgatory, which is claiming that a human being can do what only God can do. The church rightly ignored indulgences for decades. It would have been better just to let the idea lie dormant as they did with limbo, before finally admitting they don’t actually know what happens to un baptized babies who die. There is an obvious answer to me anyway - their completely innocent souls go to “ heaven” whatever that may be. That’s my belief. Obviously not the belief of all Catholics or Christian’s though. But they have opened the door then to admitting that people who aren’t baptized Christians can also go to “heaven”, grudgingly conceded at Vatican II, although Jim is still a bit uncomfortable with that idea. The PTB really need to root out the many nonsense teachings that are still “official.” Sounds like they are trying to leave transsubstantiation in the dust too, while still clinging to Scholasticism. What a tangled web they weave… when they refuse to disavow the teachings about infallibility. Pius IX sure painted the church into a corner with that one!
DeleteI don’t know if there is a purgatory. For that matter I don’t know if there is a heaven , or hell, or a triune God. I don’t know if the body of Jesus was resurrected or just disappeared from the tomb with the help of human hands. I don’t KNOW anything that I believe about God, or the divine is actually true. My beliefs are a function of where I was born, when, and to whom. I’m sure they would be quite different if I had been born in India, or Iran.
I don’t believe in intercessory prayer as I’ve mentioned many times - that it makes any difference to God- but I do it (only for the living) because of an explanation offered to me by our now retired EC rector. An explanation that doesn’t rely on God playing favorites and intervening in the natural course of events. I don’t believe that God intervenes even though my mother was always convinced that St Therese intervened with God to save me when my heart stopped beating on the operating table on her feast day. The hospital chapel was dedicated to St Therese, and my mom spent the long wait of my surgery - not knowing what was happening but that there was a serious complication- praying there.
I think that Christianity unfortunately promotes a lot of magical thinking and superstition, especially the RCC.
"Jim has essentially made the case here ( indirectly) for ignoring official teachings that don’t reflect modern understandings of science, psychology etc."
DeleteNot intentionally :-). I'm not sure what you have in mind, and would really like to know.
FWIW, I think that harmonizing scripture and faith with science and psychology can be challenging, to say the least. It's part of the "adventure" of Christian discipleship.
"So, first, forget transubstantiation. Better to admit that Christ's presence in the Eucharist is an unexplainable mystery that our little minds cannot comprehend."
DeleteUgh.
First of all, he's simply wrong that people these days don't learn Greek philosophy. Some people still do. It was required coursework at the Jesuit university I attended in the 1980s. So there were a thousand or more people every year learning at least a smattering of it, and that was just at one college. Substance, matter, accidents - these concepts aren't as opaque and inaccessible as he's suggesting.
Second - I really detest his cute little reference to "our little minds". You can't just say, "This is too hard. Don't even worry about it. Just accept it." That's asking human beings to turn off the human being switch. If there is a mystery, people are going to explore it, grapple with it, try to make some sense of it. If Aristotelian metaphysics isn't helpful for most people, then provide an alternative framework that is.
This is no longer the eighties. The Jesuits who taught philosophy have gone to their graves. Most of those philosophy requirements have been eliminated. Catholic colleges are lucky if they still have theology requirements.
DeleteI just polled my two kids who attended Catholic colleges, within the last decade. One Jesuit, one Vincentian. Fwiw, they both had to take philosophy, and the both had to read some Greeks, although neither looks back on it fondly. One said that if anyone ever mentions the allegory of the cave, at least she'll understand the reference. I don't know how often it gets mentioned, though.
DeleteMy most recent encounter with the cave allegory was in the german Netflix scifi drama series "1899".
DeleteI could have done without the "our little minds" reference; speak for youself , Fr. Reese. But he was right that in the end the Eucharist is an unexplainable mystery. We should approach it in an attitude of thanksgiving and love. People can waste a lot of time belaboring transubstantiation.
DeleteI have no idea what the allegory of the cave is, I will have to look it up. My sole course in college philosophy was one in symbolic logic, which is really more mathematics. There was no philosophy requirement at the state college that I attended. I don't know that I really missed anything. I have time now that I could read books about the great philosophers. If I wanted to. (I don't!)
Okay, I did look up the allegory of the cave. Easy to see how it could be worked into a sci-fi drama, maybe an HG Wells-ish thing.
DeleteWell, back in the late 60s my Catholic college required all to take 12 credit hours of philosophy, to include Logic and Thomistic Synthesis. I also took Existentialism and a semester of Plato. The allegory of the cave is one that has stayed with me all my life. I actually though about it quite recently, along with Plato’s ideas about philosopher kings.
DeleteIf I had stayed at the Catholic college I went to as a freshman they probably would have required more philosophy than that course in symbolic logic. But I didn't, expense and distance being factors in my decision to transfer. And lack of opportunity to spend time with K being another. But lack of philosophy doesn't really figure in my regrets in life!
DeleteI had many credits in philosophy and theology. Actually, not much Thomism but lots of Heidegger and the existentialists. Classic Greek philosophy came second hand from references in these courses. Heidegger was impressive but lacking in warm humanity. The same could be said of the Greeks. I suppose that's what allowed Heidegger to become cozy with the Nazis. I was surprised that he had a Jewish girlfriend and that was Hannah Arendt, no less.
DeleteHannah Arendt? Really? Amazing. I don’t think we talked much about Heidegger. The main readings - full length - were Sartre, Camus, and Kierkegaard as I recall. I remember more from the semester on Thomas Aquinas because I was often at odds with it. The course on Plato was actually the most interesting to me. Maybe a better professor, but I don’t really remember.
DeleteJim If Aristotelian metaphysics isn't helpful for most people, then provide an alternative framework that is. Agreed. Perhaps that will be the beginning of the end for Catholic bishops relying on "natural law" to try to justify imposing Catholic beliefs on all Americans.
DeleteKatherine But lack of philosophy doesn't really figure in my regrets in life! LOL! We were required to take 12 credit hours of philosophy AND 12 credit hours of theology.
Perhaps transferring to a state college preserved your Catholic faith. I really didn't love my philosophy and theology classes in college. I considered them a sort of penance. But, I must admit, during my very long "should I stay or should I go" struggle, it was my college philosophy and theology classes - especially theology - that pushed me finally into "leave". (sounds like Brexit).
I also had a single class in theology my freshman year and not only did it not have anything to do with Thomas Aquinas or the scholastics, the required reading was a book by Edward Schillebeeckx.. Would probably get you declared a heretic now!
Delete"We were required to take 12 credit hours of philosophy AND 12 credit hours of theology."
DeleteFor me, it was nine hours of each. For my daughter, who attended my alma mater within the last few years, it's now down to six hours of each.
I didn't like the philosophy courses at all, really liked theology. But I must admit, I'm glad I had to the reading in philosophy. Those foundational ideas (and contested ideas) sort of loom larger in one's life as we make our way through life.
As I mentioned, my kids didn't like philosophy, either. But that is not to say that they are shallow. They are anything but. But they don't get their philosophical ideas from the Greeks or Enlightenment Germans. (At least not that they're aware of; there probably is some traceable lineage, though.) They get them from influencers on Instagram and Tik Tok.
I had a philosophy minor in college as part of the pre-divinity curriculum. The only part that was worthwhile was the two- semester course in the history of philosophy, taught by a priest educated at a secular university.
DeleteWhile I think courses on the history of philosophy as well as the history of sociology and the history of psychology are useful because they introduce undergraduates to ideas in their historical context, I much prefer to do my theorizing in the context of data.
One of Francis four principles for a better society is that there is always a tension between ideas and reality. Ultimately ideas have to be changed to better fit reality.
I'm afraid I'm going to out myself as a real rube when I confess that my two favorite philosophers are Yogi Berra and Maya Angelou.
DeleteBoth great lovers of wisdom in my opinion.
DeleteI am glad that Reese is taking on the bishop’s project, a great waste of time and money.
ReplyDeleteNo amount of catechetical efforts of any kind about the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, liberal as well as conservative, are likely to bring people back to the Mass, which is the fundamental problem. People coming to Mass without receiving communion because they do not believe in the real presence is not a problem.
The most the bishops are likely to accomplish is to empower Church Ladies to berate existing Mass goers about their attitudes toward the Eucharist with the aim to get some of them to come to Eucharistic adoration. Only a few will come, and perhaps as many will be alienated from going to Mass.
This is another one of those renewal programs whose bottom line is to provide more and more services to fewer and fewer people at a great average cost. I think the economists call that a downward death spiral.
On the other had I am not impressed so far with Reese’s efforts. The critique of the bishops and their followers is not likely to get arm-chair liberals out of the seats to do anything better. I am not sure the spiritual pride of liberals that the bishop's don't know what they are doing is any better than the traditionalists pride that they are better than the people who don't go to church.
I will be interested in Reese’s positive suggestions. I hope they will be more than an alternative liberal catechesis. My suggestions are simple.
1. Better homilies: They are terrible (Francis)
2. Better music (That the people like and want to sing)
3. Better community before and after (all the research shows that Catholics are not good at this)
The Evangelicals do all three of these much better than us, and they do not even have the Eucharist!
I see the Eucharist campaign as making people fill guilty about not coming to Mass without touching the issues that could bring people back. It is blaming “bad” laity while diverting attention from the performance of bishops, clergy and lay leaders.
If the pandemic ever abates in my lifetime, I would be glad to get out of my armchair to help in my three suggestions. However, I doubt that the pastor is ever likely to give me a call asking for help in preparing his homily. So I think my retirement is safe even without the pandemic.
"I am not sure the spiritual pride of liberals that the bishop's don't know what they are doing is any better than the traditionalists pride that they are better than the people who don't go to church." Jack, bingo!
DeleteI am not impressed so far with Reese’s efforts. The critique of the bishops and their followers is not likely to get arm-chair liberals out of the seats to do anything better
ReplyDeleteI guess I missed something in the article. Where did Reese criticize the bishops? What I read is an introduction that provides some background on how the church has handled communion during its history, and how it taught about the Eucharist for centuries - transsubstantiation and presenting the sensible opinion that the RCC emulate the EC and a couple of other mainline Protestant churches on Real Presence - it’s a mystery. He also briefly added his opinion that the bishops would be wise to consult with the laity and with a few theological/ liturgical experts. And maybe hire some professional musicians. Good ideas, but I doubt that would do anything more than improving homilies and music.
I am not a Reese groupie - have mixed feelings about him - but I prefer him to the USCCB.
Ah my goodness, Should “armchair liberals” in the church be ignored? Are Catholics still expected to kiss épiscopal rings, at least figuratively? Thinking back, have the American bishops produced anything of substance, of real worth, since the economic justice pastoral letter in the 80s? They tried to teach something with substance in the 90s, drafting a pastoral letter on women in the church that sounded promising, but that letter was suppressed. So I can’t think of anything of worthwhile substance that the Catholic bishops in America have done since the 1980s. The harm they’ve done to both the church and the country by supporting anti- gay policies and the GOP in general, especially since 2015, is almost incalculable. But I’m just an armchair liberal and obviously not going to help at the parish level to bring decent homilies and music to them. I doubt that anyone can, not even Jack. So Jack’s right - I’ll just stay in my armchair.
Reese was forced out at America because he dared to publish theologians whose ideas weren’t acceptable to Benedict. I especially liked it when he would publish two articles on the same subject in the same issue by theologians with different views. If the conservative Catholics here drop a bit of their dislike of Reese, and their attachment to hierarchy, and read Reese’s series, there might be a nugget or two that they will find to be worthwhile. But maybe not.
I have mixed feelings about Reese. But I admired what he did at America, and the magazine hasn’t been nearly as good - as interesting- since. I am not renewing my subscription.
Perhaps the Catholic parishes that emulate evangelicals, like the one in Timonium, Maryland, will grow. But the disaffection with church goes much deeper than lousy homilies, mediocre music, and shortage of community. Praise music gets really tiresome and boring, but it is easy to sing. Big screens and praise bands aren’t going to do it though. I admit that I have no idea what would turn the ship around, so I will be interested to see what Reese proposes.
I also didn’t particularly like the phrasing about our little minds. But I don’t really disagree. We humans have inflated ideas about our own brilliance.
DeleteThe human mind is programmed to seek understanding, knowledge - about everything that impacts us. So science, history, psychology, etc - and, most importantly, religious understanding. The biggest mystery of all is the totality of creation that is the universe. I believe in a creator, commonly referred to as God. Theology is, by definition, a search for understanding God, a quest to increase our knowledge of gods or a God. But this is almost a form of hubris. One thing is obvious- the ??? that created the universe and everything in it possesses both intelligence and power that are so far beyond what our human minds can truly understand, that our minds are “ little” in comparison. Only a God could do it. We are not God, or even gods. Our minds are indeed little in comparison to divine intelligence. Tiny, little. Minuscule. But humans still seek to understand. Some humans focus that search on the creator, and develop theories. The major religions have recorded these ideas in books. Christians and Jews developed their understandings of creation, and the creator, in the books of the Bible. The Muslims in the Quran. The Hindus in the The Bhagavad-Gita. There are probably been billions of words recorded in millions and millions of theology texts - books, treatises, homilies, etc of all the world’s many religions. Christians say that the Creator revealed itself in the text called the Bible and in the life of Jesus. Maybe. Maybe not. I try to follow Jesus because I was planted in Christianity. I’m familiar with the gospels. I haven’t studied all of the major religions in depth. I find worthwhile concepts in all, but I find the most hope in Christianity. So while my christian Faith is weak, I still cling to christian Hope.
Although I subscribe to the "little minds" thing to a great extent, I stop short of agnosis. I am pretty sure our living consciousness shares in the Mind of God. Therefore, we are not totally full of it.
DeleteI like Reese, he's usually an engageable read. He writes clearly. I didn't deserve what happened to him at America, but I think he's landed on bigger platforms, so perhaps he got the last laugh.
DeleteSorry, *he* didn't deserve what happened to him at America! I hope I never do, either!
DeleteThis one is for Jack
ReplyDeletehttps://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2023/02/03/bishops-eucharistic-revival-competition-244626
I'm not sure what the difference is between the Eucharistic revival and a Eucharist Congress. There have been many Eucharistic Congresses over the years: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_congress
DeleteI am remembering that the song "Gift of Finest Wheat" was the official hymn for one of them in the 1970s or 80s. I was unable to find which one. That song is a keyboardist's nightmare. It's written in the key of D-flat major, five flats. Fortunately by the "rule of seven" it can be played with two sharps instead.
It will be interesting to see what they come up with for the winning hymn. Hopefully it will be one that is easy for congregational singing, and beautiful as well.
The revival is a multi-year project which includes a national Eucharistic congress.
Delete