open book: The Presser

« On Homosexual Inclination | Main | News Flash »

November 14, 2006

The Presser

Some notes from the press conference, but then I'm working on other stuff, and am not going to allow myself to watch the afternoon session...

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter asked why there was the resistance to Archbishop Burke's suggestion about Courage. Bishop Serratelli said that had been discussed in committee, and there were many different groups, and it made no sense to single out one.

Reporter pursued it, asking - well, even though Courage is an official apostolate, approved by the Vatican? That doesn't play into giving them more....(trailed off)

Bishop S. shook his head.

The NCR(egister) asked a strange question - is a contracepting heterosexual couple doing something as sinful as an active homosexual person?

Bishop Naumann (KC, KS) said that both are serious sins.

Rachel Zoll: Trying to welcome people, but also telling them they have to live a difficult life. How can this be welcoming...do you think it is welcoming while at the same time ther'e soemthing wrong with your sexuality?

S: Presenting the truth is welcoming

Niederauer: Disagreement about behavior, not the worth of the person. Yes it is difficult.As it is with many cases proclaimingt the gospel.

NCR(egister) is a heterosexual couple as sinful as a practicing homosexual?

Naumann: They're both very serious sins. They're both grave matter. Then you have to get into culpability and so on.

There was much discussion on the whole "disordered" thing again, as well as Rachel Zoll of the AP asking how this can be "welcoming" if you're telling homosexual people they are disordered.

The bishops restated Church teaching. Alan Cooperman of the WaPo asked about the analogy of homosexual inclinations with malice,envy and greed, which he said was in the document, but, as another reporter cleared up, wasn't - but was in Bishop Serratelli's speech introducing the document.

Bishops Serratelli and Niederauer explained about the proper direction of human sexuality, etc. They said that anger could be properly ordered and improperly ordered. Sexual desires are the same thing.

******

The quite difficult thing here is that the bishops who speak on this are just one step away from stating the full story on Catholic teaching on this. It is such a challenging thing to just say, "This is dis-ordered because it is not consistent with God's design for human sexuality that men have sex with other men or women with other women. There is a mystery at the heart of these temptations, there is goodness in deep affection between persons of the same sex, but yes - it is sinful to engage in this activity and to embrace it as a good. There are many holy people past and present who have struggled with this. They are not a "they" - they are us, a part of us, a part of the Body of Christ. But we can't and won't do what activists would like us to do which is, frankly, to throw Catholic teaching on sexuality completely out the window, and remake it in a completely different image, unrecognizable in the context of the broader and deeper tradition and, we believe, revelation of God."

Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink

Comments

Ah, Amy... the world would be a better place if more people spoke with such clarity.

Posted by: Zadok the Roman at Nov 14, 2006 2:23:06 PM

Good analogy.

Posted by: Jason at Nov 14, 2006 2:30:41 PM

And that certainly IS what they want to happen. Most people in that arena just do not understand how one can hold the catholic faith on the matter of homosexuality. They see it as a human rights issue, a "justice" issue and simply don't get the business about deep human brokenness. I don't even think most Christians understand it.

I wonder - if it was overtly explained in a spiritual fashion - using "brokenness" language - explaining ontological brokenness and that some are unfortunately more broken than others. It's not all about "grave sin" or behavior. That's the surface of something much deeper and more profound. Unless you're inside it, you're still probably not going to be able to grasp that, but it could be tried.

I fear I can hear rumblings of the Bishops perhaps trying a little hard to "be nice." Am I hearing things? Some of the most recent statements have seemed good in ways, but to make it all merely about actions is to not talk about the deepest part of the problem. If you just stop having sex, you'll be fine - don't worry about your actual brokenness being transformed. Hmm. Interesting stuff. Thanks for pointing things out Amy. Peace.

Posted by: + Alan at Nov 14, 2006 2:39:05 PM

Alan has got a good point when he says that "I don't even think most Christians understand it" when it comes to Original Sin and brokenness. For reason, and for probably a confluence of catechetical failings, there is a theological void in people's minds when it comes to this area...it's something that is hard for them to shift to.

Example: I've taken several lay ministry courses on varying subjects through my archdiocese. One lengthy set of courses was on morality. One day the teacher got into the idea of natural evil, and his discussion went to how disease, sickness, genetic flaws and whatnot were examples of natural evil. That is, a person with cancer is suffering a natural evil -- they have done no evil directly to cause it nor are they evil because of it. The class, which was made of people of varying backgrounds (most in parish catechetical leadership), could not get their heads around this point. Question after question insisted that to say such a thing would be to say the person was evil. If cancer is part of your body, and it's evil, how are you not part of that evil? And a sick child (born as such) is evil under such a definition as well, they insisted. The poor teacher tried over and over again to explain, then eventually we moved on.

While not all people had that difficulty, I was shocked at the number of people who asked questions or looked troubled at the prospect of natural evil. I find it the same among the many, many Catholic I know: they can find no possible room between total acceptance of homosexual activity and calling a person evil. And those who try to introduce nuance usually seem to be doing it to hide agreement with the former.

A very difficult lesson to teach...but Amy's right, more of our leaders need to be trying.

Posted by: Brandon at Nov 14, 2006 2:53:26 PM

i vote for Amy for US bishops' spokesman. She would do a marvelous job of doing what so many of them seem to be unable to do, i.e. presenting the truths of Christianity clearly and comprehensibly.

Posted by: thomas tucker at Nov 14, 2006 3:05:49 PM

The brokeness language only goes so far. There is the element of personal responsibility in sin that the word 'brokeness' does not capture. It's the mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa maxima issue. What we do and how we think are so intertwined. Yes, the language of sin of offensive but we need to understand we are offenders. We are not good people that somehow broke but we have made a choice to be selfish. We have profaned sacred a beautiful gifts that God has given us so we could have a moment of pleasure. Yes we need to welcome people but there are some hard truths we can't sugarcoat. The good news is that Jesus offers us purity if we want it. We have to count the cost or we will try and short circuit the process. The christian life is hard. There is a deep joy in the journey that will draw people. It will never make sense at a press conference.

Posted by: Randy at Nov 14, 2006 3:08:30 PM

I don't think that the Register's apparent drawing of a parallel between contraceptive heterosexual and homosexual sex (teleologically) is at all odd. I am very glad to hear it brought up.
As a gay guy trying to live a chaste life (thank goodness for Irish scruples, I guess)I am amazed at the number of straight, believing Catholics who see the whole issue of homosexuality in black and white, but become incredibly nuanced when it comes to contraception. Even if they abhor it, then can get their mind around why someone might "do" it. In short, it affects them, even in the abstract, while the idea of homosexuality repulses them...and then is beyond the effort of trying to understand.
In talking further with some of these people it seems to boil down to "well, at least my sins are normal..."
Take that one to Jesus!
In linking the two (contraception and homosexuality) it allows me to help people understand my perspective as a gay man.
(Another thing...the Church has also been clear that homosexuality is sinful because it doesn't meet the "ends" of the sexual act...i.e., unitive and procreative. But what about those straight people who have the "gift" of being able to have both those ends and still choose not to. Which is worse?)

Posted by: gemello at Nov 14, 2006 3:15:01 PM

Gemello:

Well said.

Posted by: JPF at Nov 14, 2006 3:40:47 PM

Where I get stuck with all of the discussion about homosexuality, is that the gay and lesbian people are usually left out of the conversation, or minimized as we have a personal stake.

After 5+ years in religious life plus an additional 10 years of careful discrenment and prayer, I still can not reconcile my life experience with church teaching on this matter. It was only when I came out that I truly found God and for the first time embraced the Word of God--I had found myself to give to God. My full, same-sex relationships have helped me to grow fuller as a person and more into my Christian vocation. There is major disonance between what the Bishops teach and my experience as a child of God.

In fact, its is in trying understand the teaching on this as well as the witness to its validity that I encounter evil and the absence of God.

I get that the hetro orientation is normative, but it does not seem complete. As a gay man the teaching seems directed towards non gay folks who act out on their gay inclinations as oppose to gay Christians who are living out the fullness of Christ with significant others.

Posted by: TonyDC at Nov 14, 2006 3:52:37 PM

Second that, Gemello...

and thank you, Amy, for your gift of speaking with clarity and in charity.

Posted by: Mary at Nov 14, 2006 4:03:30 PM

I find it just the opposite. As someone with similarly disordered inclinations (although I wouldn't identify myself as a "gay" man), the sexual theology of the Church is something so beautiful and just makes sense to me, that I feel like I retreat into the darkness when I fail to live up to it. Like Alan was saying, that brokenness is like a millstone around my neck that is preventing me from being what God intended for me to be. Randy is right to an exent, that our behavior is a personal decision, but the dominance of that brokenness is all that seems real; it's similar to St. Paul talking about doing what he didn't want to do. I really do wish I could snap my fingers and be what the Church points us to, a living icon of Christ. I have never had difficulty with accepting what the Church teaches, but moreso living it out.

I agree that it's important for Priests and Bishops to frame their pastoral guidance in terms of a positive sexual integration and not just "homosexual acts cannot produce children". The theology of the body is really beautiful, and I think people will respond to it; I know I have, although it's certainly not easy to live. Homosexuality, and lust in general, is really a degrading and dehumanizing passion.

Posted by: Anonymous at Nov 14, 2006 4:13:16 PM

Tony DC- give it another 15 years and then see where you are and what you have discerned. I eventually learned that the Church is right in what it teaches, in this as well as many other matters, even though i couldn't see it at the time( and even when "at the time" seemed like a very long time.)The wisdom of the Church is centuries old, not fifteen or even fifty years old.

Posted by: thomas tucker at Nov 14, 2006 4:30:13 PM

Contrary to what Gemello says, it is not my experience that orthodox Catholics who condemn both contraception and homosexual sex try to "understand" or excuse the former but not the latter. Rather, those who try to excuse contraception tend to be the same people who excuse homosexual sex.

Posted by: Dan at Nov 14, 2006 4:39:59 PM

I get the concept of brokenness. Nevertheless, my being gay is not broken.

This is a place where out gay and lesbian voices are missing. My expression of love and care is just that MY expression of love and care--saying its broken because non gay folks don't get it greatly diminishes my experience and discernment of God. The brokenness notion does not account for the grounding of that love and care in God as Source and Spirit of love. Brokenness actually dismisses it as false and without merit.

I have come to see a gay orientation in myself and other gay and lesbians people as a Gift of God. A call to walk a different path and to witness to the fullness of God.

While attempting not to disregard church teaching on procreation, sexuality and its actions are more than the creation of children. It can be a powerful witness to Love as one gives ones self over to another and embraces utter transcendence. It is the two souls joining and becoming more than their parts--it is God being made manifest in love and care.

The spiritual component continues to be missing from the church teaching on homosexuality...my relationships are not about sexual gratification but about encountering God in the one of the most profound and intense ways humans have available. It is also about embracing my core self to move outward and love and care for others.

Posted by: TonyDC at Nov 14, 2006 4:52:31 PM

Thanks Tom you have such a caring and nuturing way about helping out a brother Catholic in his struggle.

Again, I can only say what I said at the beginning..."Where I get stuck with all of the discussion about homosexuality, is that the gay and lesbian people are usually left out of the conversation, or minimized as we have a personal stake."

Posted by: TonyDC at Nov 14, 2006 4:58:32 PM

Anonymous (at 4:13 p.m.)
The following is from your comment...have to figure out how to italicize on this:

"The theology of the body is really beautiful, and I think people will respond to it; I know I have, although it's certainly not easy to live. Homosexuality, and lust in general, is really a degrading and dehumanizing passion."

The thing about the beauty of something is that it's often more subjective and thus may resonate differently with you than it does with me. Some of John Paul II's stuff is beatiful, but it seems so "poetic" and that doesn't mean much to me (my lack of understanding, not the Holy Father's effort...that's one reason I was thrilled with Pope Benedict's election....I can read and understand him better than Pope John Paul). You could look at something and claim it a masterpiece, while I would be left with a completely different impression.

But even if I do find it a masterpiece, I am also left with the feeling of inadequacy,(I would have had to use stenciling and a lot of help if I had painted the Sistine Chapel). It could come off as "unreal" or even a bit out of touch.

Nor have I been able to reduce my homosexual inclination to "lust." I wish to God it were that easy. In this respect you are lucky. I have lustful thoughts and they are totally different from the feeling that my experiencing life and love in the world is what I am battling against....not lust. If it were just a passion for me I could then deal with it like anger. But, at least in my case, it's a step back from that. It makes me see that for me to live according to the Church's teaching I am not only not acting out sexually, but saying that my impulse to an exclusive, sexual relationship, something that I share with 99% of you straight people reading this, has to be completely shut down. How many straight people would do that or accept that? It's not that I am giving up an evil, but a response to creation that is fundamentally, (if poorly, at times) expressed by everyone else out there.

Of course for me all of this comes down to Christ who loves me and changes my heart. That's where the discussion begins...with the heart.
Cor ad cor loquitur....

Posted by: gemello at Nov 14, 2006 5:00:23 PM

I too see a linkage of the homosexual temptation to a particular kind of disordered activity and the temptation of the heterosexual to also participate in another kind of "contaminated" activity. Both can tend to self centeredness and immaturity or use of another person. And for this reason I think that it only confuses the direction when one speaks of the "deep affection" between persons of the same sex (which in itself can also be disordered) as something "good" when if not controlled inevitably becomes its very own temptation ... and this same kind of justification is used by heterosexuals when they contracept; that they still feel that need to express their "love/deep affection" but cannot for the time have the fullness of such activity included for their own reasons ... some of course quite serious and of human need.

Those good therapists who treat the same sex inclined within the teachings of the Church cite the deep craving for the missed same sex bonding with the parent and acceptance by heterosexual peers of the same sex. This deep natural need for that kind of acceptance goes without being met and then proceeds to be acted out with peers of the same sex for acceptance. There is then a deep need in the feelings/affections which can become eroticized and then become physically/psychologically addictive. So the affections also have to become stabilized and controlled by both or one is constantly living in an occasion of sin.

Posted by: anonytoo at Nov 14, 2006 5:19:40 PM

Naumann: They're both very serious sins. They're both grave matter.

Archbishop Naumann really has a grasp of the important things, the essential things... sin, personal holiness, a true sense of right and wrong.

As one who lives in the archdiocese of KCKS, we're blessed to have him.

Posted by: Brian at Nov 14, 2006 5:57:13 PM

Hmm, where to begin.

On one level, H.E. Abp. Naumann is correct, both are seriously sinful (and this is probably the easiest answer for media soundbites, but on another level, the difference between the married couple contracepting and the two men engaging in homosexual acts is one of natural attraction / relationship v. unnatural disordered attraction / relationship. It is true that neither is fruitful, but the attraction is natural in one case and the result of fallen creation in the other. I know I will get an ear-full for that, but I think it must be said.

That said, don't accuse me as one who is speaking in an aloof manner. The fact is, I find myself afflicted with a "homosexual inclination." My lived experience actually confirms the Truth as articulated by the Magisterium of the Church. Do I find the church to be "welcoming"? Yes! Do I find life to be difficult? Absolutely, but how is that a qualifier in terms of validity of Church teaching. All of us labor under stress, difficulty, challenge - this is called the human condition, and with God's grace, we all must struggle with it - married, single, religious, etc.

The reporter seems to suggest that to welcome someone means to expect nothing of them. If I invite someone to my house, I will show them hospitality, but if they violate my home and I ask them to behave, does that mean I no longer welcome them?

In the end, the Bishops passed up a golden opportunity to be clear on church teaching (the fullness of it, not just the "no!") by merely footnoting Courage as "one among many programs" Cardinal George's intervention is crucial: These people are not seeking only chastity, but they are seeking sanctity!

Posted by: anon at Nov 14, 2006 6:26:18 PM

I think David Morrison and Eve Tushnet speak well on this issue.

The thing is, any kind of weakness of character that seems inborn in us is usually some kind of indication also of our strengths, present and potential. Lewis had a beautiful passage in which a sin that was bridled and tamed was transformed into a help.

Posted by: Maureen at Nov 14, 2006 6:26:49 PM

Tony, et al:

Your position would be more effectively communicated were it not in the first person. Make an argument that's expressed through the thought-forms, ideas, norms, and concepts of Christian thought. Autobiography has its limits.

Posted by: Fletch F. Fletch at Nov 14, 2006 8:09:22 PM

Responding to Randy - definitely, there is that element of our own sinful acting on inward broken desires. I contend that this kind of activity acts to break us more. That's why it's bad. So many people see moral "rules" as arbitrary and reasonless. They come from the Heart of God who Loves us, trying to get us to move away from what is still broken inside us toward being transformed into His Image.

Anyway, my talk of brokenness is not to be used as a replacement for personal moral responsibility. The thing is - the big thing - the connection between the two. Simply because we know a moral right does not give us the ability to carry it out. Even our wills are damaged. Our ability to be fully Human Beings is broken at the core. Being incorporated into Christ is, of course, the necessary beginning to the process of transformation. And then we cooperate until it's done.

Tony states his belief that his orientation is a gift, something natural, to him and to many. I do understand this. I don't share this "inclination" so I can't empathize in that way, but I do and have known and loved gay people who are Christians. I do sympathize with the struggle being something unimaginable. That being said, I think we fight with the Revelation of Truth, on several fronts, through the whole history of the Church when saying this. Of course that debate won't be settled here. I'll only add that we can say many things are right and good simply because they are but the weight of such reasoning is very light I think.

I certainly don't mean to say anything insulting or "mean" to a homosexual person by saying that their orientation is a broken result of the fall, just as many things are. I would say it as a helpful thing. As I said, this is a complicated business and we're really not "arguing" the whole deal here. I don't mean to try to do that. Just trying to clarify the brokenness thing. Peace.

Posted by: + Alan at Nov 14, 2006 8:41:19 PM

A simple observation as a 51 year old man with six children in my household. Many years ago I concluded that, after so many of the catholic men in my parish had one child, or possibly two, something unfortunate occured in their reproductive lives: they and their wives suddenly became infected with the "infertility bug." To this day, I have yet to hear a priest (and their have been several in the last 30 years) even address this issue as well as the sinfulness of contraception. In this regard, they, too, are guilty of specific sin of "clerical contraception." This very term was recently coined by the Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, President of Human Life International. In other words, Catholic priest in the recent past and present are using a symbolic contraception over the pulpit, which, in effect, prevents them was preaching the Catholic Truth in its totality! Subesequently, the laity continue to operate in ignorance and sinfulness. Fr. Euteneuer advises that Bishops and priest, who have been commissioned to preach the fullness of the Faith, yet, who have practiced clerical contraception, will have much to answer to Christ our Lord for their leading the Lord's children astray.
Suffice it to say, Bishops and priest lack of silence on God the Father's Heavenly decree for his children "to be fruitful and multiply"
will have eternal consequences for them.

Posted by: ohevin at Nov 14, 2006 9:08:28 PM

Gee, tony, i don't know why my comment called for your sarcasm other than that i don't agree with you. Did I call you names or insult you? Is agreeing with you what is required to be caring and nurturing?

Posted by: thomas tucker at Nov 14, 2006 9:10:13 PM

As for struggle, tony, i must say that i didn't get the impression from your comments that you were struggling. On the contrary, you sound like you decided that Church teaching was simply wrong and now you are able to glory in your sexuality. My advice, however, is to conform your self to the mind of the Church, not seek to have the Church conform itself itself to you. And that goes also for contracepting heterosexuals.

Posted by: thomas tucker at Nov 14, 2006 9:22:13 PM