Our fellow blogger Steve Bainbridge links to the recent symposium in First Things on Richard Neuhaus'(s) "Naked Public Square: Religion and Democracy in America," now 20 years old.
Rick
Tuesday, December 14, 2004
"Naked Public Square" Symposium
More on Homosexuality and the Priesthood
Teresa Collett offers the following thoughts in response to Michael Perry's and Pat Brennan's earlier posts:
I appreciate the nature of Michael P. and Pat Brennan's engagement with me on the question how the Church should view homosexuality in considering a candidate for ordination and apologize for my delay in responding. Let me answer Michael's comments first. Because I believe sexual identity is intrinsic to human nature and part of the divine plan, I believe as a woman, I image God in a manner different from men and therefore cannot represent Christ in the celebration of the Eucharist. See sec. 26 in Mulieris Dignitatem. This is not, however, because the female is by nature "disordered" or a "misbegotten male," but rather because we image the receptive and generative nature of God - the bride, rather than the bridegroom. As for there being other characteristics that should disqualify heterosexual candidates for ordination -- without question! Yet that does not establish that the Church should disregard its own teaching that "[The] psychological genesis [of homosexual attraction] remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." It seems a sensible policy that someone with a persistent attraction toward something that is a grave depravity should be disqualified from ordination. However, if you begin from the position that Michael does (that homosexual sexual desire is not disordered in any theologically relevant sense), the policy would be inappropriate. As for Pat's comments, I agree that we are awaiting magisterial determination and hope nothing I have written suggests the contrary. However the question Michael posed earlier was whether the policy that has been reported to be in effect in some American dioceses and under consideration by the Vatican would be a sin against the men it excluded from ordination (a "sin against the Gospel" in Michael's words). It was in that context that I quoted the provision of section 1849, so I am somewhat confused by Pat's discussion of personal sin and disordered desires. If I understand Pat's point (and I am not certain I do) personal culpability for wrongdoing is not the only reason the Church declines to ordain candidates. Lack of age, lack of maturity, mental illness, and lack of faith are all reasons that do not involve the will of the person, yet disqualify candidates for ordination. Similarly homosexuality need not involve the will of the person, but may be determined by the Vatican to disquality men from ordination. In the end, I honestly don't know exactly whether I believe the Vatican should adopt this policy, but I am reasonably certain that it is not sinful to do so. I think there are both theological and ontological meanings to be drawn from the fact that we are created as man and woman, and procreation requires our union. What the Holy Father calls the nuptial meaning of the body is denied by homosexuality, and that denial has theological significance.
Monday, December 13, 2004
Jack Balkin, Justice Thomas, and the Embarrassing Natural Law
Here is an interesting post by Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin, "Is Belief in Natural Law an 'Embarrassment'?" First, some back-story: A few days ago, Nevada Senator (and Senate Minority Leader) Harry Reid told "Meet the Press" that, while Justice Antonin Scalia is quite smart, Justice Clarence Thomas is an "embarrassment to the Supreme Court." "I think that his opinions are poorly written," Reid continued (exposing himself as an ignoramus, if not a trafficker in racial double-standards).
Next, Kevin Drum explained, on the Washington Monthly's blog, that Justice Thomas is indeed an "embarrassment," because he believes that "that our rights come not from government but from a 'creator' and 'the laws of nature and of nature's God,' as our Declaration of Independence says, and that the purpose and power of government should therefore be limited to protecting our natural, God-given rights."
Professor Balkin -- no fan of Justice Thomas's approach to the Constitution -- responds:
I don't think that one's position on natural law matters one way or the other about whether one is doing one's job as a judge well or badly. The real question, it seems to me, is what you think natural law ideas mean for Constitutional interpretation as a practical matter.
It's quite possible to take the view that the best interpretation of the Constitution is one that which comports with natural law, and that the Framers' understandings are defective, because the Framers supported a wide variety of practices that are inconsistent with natural justice. Similarly, it's entirely possible to believe in natural law and in the idea that the application of moral principles must change with changing circumstances, and hence, that the best interpretation of the Constitution must also change accordingly. Finally, it's possible to be a legal realist about the mechanics of judging-- that is, that judicial decision is inevitably influenced by surrounding historical, political, and social conditions, and that judges are sensitive to underlying facts rather to abstract doctrinal formulas-- and still believe that the best interpretation of the Constitution is one which conforms to one's notion of what natural law requires.
Interesting.
Rick
Pat Brennan on the Perry/Collett Colloquy
Following are some thoughts from my colleague Pat Brennan on the question of homosexuality in the priesthood that Mike Perry and Teresa Collett have been discussing. Recent postings concerning whether "homosexual" men should be ordained to the ministerial priesthood of the Catholic Church prompt the following few thoughts. While these thoughts give expression to my judgment that a man's "homosexuality" as such does not present a reason for those charged with discerning priestly vocations to declare a man not "called" to ministerial priesthood, we await magisterial determination of this question. Before Humanae vitae there was room for speculation that the encyclical's's issuance eliminated. Among my concerns about some statements in the recent postings is that they might lack even the roots in tradition that Humanae vitae claims for itself. First, while the second half of section 1849 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which Teresa doesn't go on to quote, does say (quoting Aquinas, in turn quoting Augustine) that a "desire contrary to the eternal law" is sin, the larger context teaches that there is no personal sin without the moral actor's voluntary involvement. Disordered desires that we neither author nor endorse do not cast us into personal sin, no? And, it should go without saying that the basic effects of Original Sin are insufficient to render a person uncalled (to ministry). Second, that our desires will be disordered, is a given. Does the large tradition governing Catholic understanding and development of the ministerial priesthood establish or even suggest that disordered sexual desire is per se evidence that a man is not called to the ministerial priesthood? Third, the tradition brims with evidence that only those thought capable (thanks to God's grace) of priestly ministry are to be discerned called to the same and, on that ground, ordained and sent. But there is no expectation of perfect fidelity, only hope of the same. "Order[ing] our lives to avoid occasions of sin" is, indeed, morally exigent. What, then, can we say of those monastic communities, not essentially priestly in their consecration, that invite and join together all sinners, thought to have a monastic vocation, to enter upon a radical, concentrated form of renunciation (that includes chaste celibacy)? Monastic communities are struggling with the same questions raised in the postings about the ministerial priesthood, but in the purely monastic case the "in persona Christi" question does not arise as it might in the case of priesthood as such, and precious few monastic communities have maintained that the "homosexual" man as such cannot be called to chaste celibacy in the cloister. As one wise monastic text teaches, "Each person has to come to terms with his or her particular sexual make-up, learn to be responsible for it, and discover how to make his or her particular contribution to human and monastic life." Finally, nothing in what I say militates against the Church's exercising, through the Magisterium or through particular churches or communities, the prudence that has almost always guided questions concerning discernment of the call to the ministerial priesthood. "Self-control" is one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit, and the Church rightly seeks it in potential ordinands. But a per se ban on the "homosexual" candidate hardly seems consistent with the traditional understanding of what is required for a man to be called to be a Priest of Jesus Christ.
Non-Catholics in Boston Oppose Disclosure Requirements
According to this story in the Boston Globe, "[t]he major mainline Protestant and Orthodox churches of Massachusetts have decided unanimously to oppose legislation that would force religious organizations to make public their finances, throwing an obstacle in the path of efforts by some Catholics to require greater disclosure by the Archdiocese of Boston."
A bill proposed by Senator Marian Walsh -- who is, we're assured by the Globe, "a long time ally of the Catholic Church" -- "would require religious organizations, including churches, to disclose financial information now required of other nonprofit organizations. The reports would include a summary of financial data and the salaries for the five highest-paid employees and the five highest-paid consultants. The bill would also require all charitable organizations, including churches, to list their real estate holdings on an annual financial report."
Apparently, "Walsh . . . began to explore greater legislative oversight of the archdiocese because of her concern about the clergy abuse crisis." Walsh said that many of her constituents "wanted to have a dialogue about what happened, and they found those conversations to be unproductive. Maybe they [archdiocesan officials] are closing food pantries and viable schools when they own land on the waterfront -- maybe we should learn what their revenue is, what their salaries are, and what they're paying their p.r. firm."
Sigh. An "ally of the Catholic Church" thinks it advisable to subject Church decisions about food pantries and viable schools to "greater legislative oversight"? Thankfully, "the Massachusetts Council of Churches, an umbrella organization representing about 1,700 non-Catholic Christian congregations" is stepping up to remind legislators -- and Boston-area Catholics -- that "the proposed legislation would violate the independence of religious organizations promised by the federal and state constitutions."
Rick
Saturday, December 11, 2004
The Holy See and Religious Freedom
The news service ZENIT provides an interesting excerpt from a talk given by Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo, Vatican Secretary for Relations With States. The remarks were given at a Dec. 3 conference, "Religious Freedom: The Cornerstone of Human Dignity."
With respect to the relationship between the "secularity of the state," on the one hand, and the "public dimension of religious freedom," on the other, Lajolo quoted Pope John Paul II’s observation last January that "a healthy dialogue between the state and the churches -- which are not rivals but partners -- can encourage the integral development of the human person and harmony in society." He added, "[w]hen the secularity of states is, as it must be, an expression of true freedom, then it favors dialogue and, therefore, transparent and regular cooperation between civil society and religious groups, in the service of the common good, and it contributes to building up the international community based on participation rather than exclusion, and on respect rather than on contempt."
On the timely and thorny issues of proselytism, evangelism, and coercion, Lajolo stated, "[i]f it is accepted that religious freedom is a right rooted in the very nature of the human person and that, as a result, it is prior to any express recognition on the part of state authorities, then the registration of religious communities cannot be considered as a prerequisite for enjoying such freedom." He added, "religious freedom implies, in the civil sphere, the subjective right of changing one's religion as well. . . . In the international context, marked by an insurgence of religious fundamentalisms, it is more than ever imperative to recall the international ban on coercion, on penal sanctions or on the threat of physical force in order to force adherence to religious creeds or religious communities."
And, commenting on the tendency in the "international community" to "place religious freedom ‘under the umbrella’ of tolerance," Lajolo reminded listeners that "tolerance does not mean ‘a renunciation or a weakening of one's own principles,’ but rather ‘the freedom to adhere to one's own convictions and to accept that others can do the same.’ Those who live with coherence their own religious convictions cannot, as such, be considered intolerant. They become so if, instead of proposing their own convictions and eventually expressing respectful criticism of convictions other than their own, they intend to impose their convictions and exercise either open or surreptitious pressure on the conscience of others."
If you are not already subscribing to ZENIT, you might consider it.
Rick
Friday, December 10, 2004
"Disordered" Sexual Desire?
In my earlier response to Teresa, I said nothing that presupposed that homosexual sexual desire is not, as Teresa said, "disordered". But, as it happens, I do not believe that homosexual sexual desire is disordered in any theologically relevant sense. (I do believe, however, that the magisterium's teaching that homosexual sexual desire is disordered--indeed, "objectively" disordered--is ... well, disordered.) For readers who want to pursue this issue, this is a great place to start:
Stephen J. Pope, The Magisterium's Arguments Against "Same-Sex Marriage": An Ethical Analysis and Critique, Theological Studies, vol. 65, no. 3, September 2004, pp. 530-565.
Theological Studies, you may know, is published by Theological Studies, Inc., for the Society of Jesus in the United States. Stephen Pope, a Roman Catholic, is associate professor of theology at Boston College, a Jesuit university.
Michael P.
Response to Teresa
Thanks to Teresa for her statement below. I have two brief comments in response.
First. Of course, virtually all of us are "disordered" in one or another respect (or respects). It is theologically mistaken, in my judgment, to hold that the fact that a human being is disordered--broken--in one or another respect means that he cannot represent (re-present) Christ for us in, for example, the Litury of the Eucharist. Indeed, even a sinner can represent Christ for us in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. (I wonder whether Teresa believes that the fact that a human being is female means that she cannot represent Christ for us in the Liturgy of the Eucharist.)
Second. There are some heterosexual men whose disorder--whose brokenness--would subvert their priestly calling, and the Church should try to discern who these men are and exclude them from the priesthood. The same is true for some homosexual men. But there are also some heterosexual men whose brokenness would be redeemed--men whose disorder would lead them by a tortuous route to commit acts of profound humanity--in their priestly calling, and the Church should try to discern whose these men are and welcome them to the priesthood. The same is true for some homosexual men. In my judgment, to counsel the Church to exclude homosexual men from the priesthood on the basis of an irrebuttable presumption--that homosexual sexual desire is more likely to be subversive of than redemptive in one's priestly calling--when the Church could proceed on the basis of discerning individualized determinations, is to vent an attitude toward homosexual men (i.e., to those homosexual men who present themselves as candidates for the priesthood) that is contrary to the love that Christ manifests and enjoins in the Gospels.
(In any event, I suspect that if the Church were to exclude homosexual men from the priesthood--rather than encourage both homosexual and heterosexual men who present themselves as candidates for the priesthood to be open about their sexuality--the Church wouldn't succeed in keeping homosexual men out of the priesthood; rather, the Church would only make it more likely that the (closeted) homosexual men who become priests are those whose sexuality would eventually be subversive of, rather than redemptive in, their priestly calling.)
Michael P.
Sexual Disorder and the Priest as Image of Christ
Teresa Collett provides the following response to Michael Perry's question on the exclusion of homosexuals from the priesthood:
I am uncertain exactly what Michael means by a "sin against the Gospel," but I assume he means something like the definition of sin given by section 1849 of the Catechism: "an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods." Assuming we have a shared definition of sin, I think the Church would be justified in adopting a policy of excluding men who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward men from ordination to the priesthood because of the nature and function of the ministerial priesthood, which is to act in the person of Christ in the sacrifice of the Mass and in proclaiming Christ's mystery. While all of us, and therefore every candidate for ordination, will be subject to various temptations (Romans 3:23), the question is whether the Church is justified in seeing disordered sexual desires as grounds for disqualification from ordination. John Paul II has advanced our understanding of how our sexual nature images God in much of his writing, but perhaps most particularly in his book, "Love and Responsibility". While this text primarily focuses on the nature of married love, it provides a deep understanding of the nature of human sexual identity properly ordered. The priest who is to image Christ to his parish, and be a father to his parishioners must have a rightly ordered sense of the gift of generative partnership that is sexual love. Compounding the theological difficulty of a priest who has an exclusive homosexual orientation, is the practical problems that confront all of us in living a chaste life in contemporary society. By making the choice to live in accordance with God's law for our lives, we should order our lives to avoid occasions of sin. For a man entering the priesthood, his living conditions may (like those of the military) be "spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy." It is both unwise and sinful to place people in positions of temptation.
Bonhoeffer as Fad
Let me offer another take on the "vogue for Dietrich Bonhoeffer." It may refer not to the passing relevance of the man, but to our somewhat superficial (and perhaps passing) embrace of his teachings. Many Christians eagerly read and seek to apply his work in the context of their individual relationship with God; far fewer, I'm afraid, take seriously his vision of faith's societal implications. I just watched the fabulous documentary on his life last week, and the film emphasized Bonhoeffer's radical opposition to the institutional church's willing alignment with state power and priorities. It became far too easy for Lutheran leaders (and Catholics, to a lesser degree) to define the church's interest as the state's interest. Speaking truth to power was left to Bonhoeffer, Niemoller, and a few other notables.
To what extent is the American church speaking truth to power? I remember watching clips of President Bush's February 2003 speech to the National Religious Broadcasters convention, an evangelical-dominated organization. He spoke about the coming conflict that was being forced upon the nation due to Saddam Hussein's refusal to get rid of his WMD. He ended with the Phillips Brooks quote, "Do not pray for tasks equal to your strength, pray for strength equal to your tasks." He was repeatedly met with wild applause indistinguishable from a GOP rally. (Here's the video: the relevant passage is at the end.) I am by no means comparing the Iraq war with Nazi Germany's conquests, but I am led to wonder how Bonhoeffer would respond to thousands of Christians seeming to exuberantly celebrate the prospect of war. Is Bonhoeffer currently in fashion among American Christians, especially in their devotional lives? Yes. Have most American Christians taken seriously the lessons of Bonhoeffer's life and work for our relationship with state power? I have my doubts.
Rob
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
