Showing posts with label natural law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label natural law. Show all posts

Saturday, 26 February 2011

Competing Catholic Catechisms

There have been several official Roman Catholic Catechisms since the Council of Trent. It will surprise some readers that these have not always agreed on every aspect of Catholic belief or faith –perhaps none more so as it affects the question of homosexuality.

‘A New Catechism – Catholic Faith for Adults', The Seabury Press, New York, NY., (1973) ISBN 0-8164-1070-4 Nihil Obstat: Leo J. Steady, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur +Robert F. Joyce, Bishop of Burlington, September 1969. In the years following its issue, this Catechism was the only comprehensive book of its kind within the Church.

A New Catechism better known as the ‘Dutch Catechism’ was the first post-Vatican II Catholic catechism. It was commissioned and authorized by the Catholic hierarchy of the Netherlands and went through various publishers after reaching the North American market.

The above publication was the popular Catechism for Roman Catholics during the sixties and seventies. My wife and I originally received our (1967) copy from the Church upon completion of Interfaith classes in Toronto. Today Catholics are perhaps more familiar with the 1983 version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church from the CCCB.

The 1973 edition in comparison to the current Catechism is more user friendly; completely devoid of the 'top down' legalistic format and archaic language associated with the current 1983 edition from Rome.

The 1973 edition is still valid and legitimate for many practicing Catholics and available along with the Baltimore Catechism. In fact, the current 1983 edition reads: “This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms, duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See.”

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE CATECHISMS

Catechism of the Catholic Church (1983) There are several inherent problems with the 1983 issue

The popular Catholic understanding that “Scripture presents homosexual acts as sinful . . . . contradicts the 1973 edition which holds:"It is not the fault of the individual if he or she is not attracted to the other sex. The causes of homosexuality are unknown . . . .The very sharp strictures of Scripture on homosexual practices (Gen. 1; Rom. 1) must be read in their context.”

Actually the Bible has no adequate treatment on homosexuality. There is no evidence to suggest that any biblical author had even a vague notion that homosexuality could be a lifelong disposition.

Official Catholic statements frequently used to support the unchanging traditions of the Church are usually preceded with the statement “tradition has always declared . . .’ clearly contradict the views held about homosexuality in these contradicting catechisms.

Additionally, it is well known that perhaps as many as one-third of Catholic priest are homosexual. It is most likely that many of them are sexually active.

The 1983 Catechism declares “homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity” and as intrinsically disordered”. These highly volatile statements are frequently used by some people to condemn homosexuals in general. Such language can be found among fundamentalist to promote an atmosphere of physical and emotional hatred even death. Its victims are denigrated as less, unwanted or  evil – resulting in much emotional suffering and sometimes lead to suicide. Efforts to compromise these damaging statements by announcing that Catholics must “love the person and hate the sin” appear meaningless and devoid of a Christ-like attitude of compassion.

Most practicing Catholics do not possess a copy of a Catholic Catechism. Exposure to current teachings on homosexuality is extremely limited due to the controversial nature as well of lack of understanding by members of the clergy on the subject.

Neither The Catechism of The Council of Trent (1566) nor the Baltimore Catechism (the de facto standard Catholic school text in the North America from 1885 to the late 1960s) include any specific reference to homosexuality.

On Natural Law

Arguments that homosexuality contravenes ‘Natural Law’ must be tempered by the primacy of ‘Freedom of Conscience'. According to the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, we discover the natural law in the depths of our conscience. The natural law is written in the human heart by God. “To obey it is the very dignity of the human person; according to it the human person will be judged” (n. 16; see also the Declaration on Religious Freedom, nn. 2, 3, 14).

These comparisons reveal the depths and gulf that currently exists between some Roman Catholic teachings since Vatican II. Many priests are emotionally and physically exhausted by these contentious issues. Vatican II, like it or not – either it happened or none of the previous twenty-one councils did not take place either.

To suppress sexuality, regardless of gender preferences, inevitably results in different forms of abuse. We need to address the issue of homosexuality and human sexuality (chastity) in an honest and Christ like manner – not in the vindictive and often confusing language emanating from Rome.

Many people may not approve of blatant outward expressions of homosexuality, parades, etc.  after years of persecution perhaps we would do the same thing.

Marriage, Homosexuality, Contraception

We need to dispel the Catholic understanding that the act of Homosexuality is a sin because it goes against the totality that the marital act requires.

The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World no longer insisted that the primary purpose of the marital act was about begetting children. The central focus of this document is now on the love between the two spouses, through their life in Jesus Christ. Church teaching on the marital state requires spousal acceptance of each other's failures and faults and the recognition that the "call to holiness in marriage" is one that requires a process of spiritual growth and conversion that can last throughout life.
The Catholic Church has reached a stage of intense crisis as far as authority in matters of human sexuality. Its credibility is weak. The official statements of the Church still hand down the black-and-white prescriptions of the past with hardly any reference to advances in the human sciences or even to the latest findings in scriptural, dogmatic and moral theology.



Finally, to quote Fr. Thomas Bokenkotter, author of Dynamic Cathlicism, “Homosexuals who seek to fulfill their sexual needs in the context of a stable, loving relationship are not acting immorally. Their decision of conscience should be respected by the Church and they should be welcomed to the Eucharistic table.”




On Contraception

Pope Paul's message was that it is immoral for a married couple to have sex merely to express mutual love, that they must also preserve the possibility of procreation. His logical mistake was to claim that the hapless rhythm method of birth control (periodic abstinence) could be approved because it retained an intrinsic link to procreation -- when, in fact, both partners were seeking to avoid procreation.

A few theologians pointed out Paul's errors publicly and incurred the wrath of the church. Charles Curran, for example, who led a group of protesting theologians, was forbidden to continue teaching moral theology at Catholic University.

For those who sensed the specter of 'Catholic Conservatism' or those  opposed to the work of Vatican II;  the following article from Time Magazine, December 1, 1967 might be of interest.

"Catechism in Dutch

Some Roman Catholic prelates have done all they could to discourage U.S. circulation of the Dutch catechism (TIME, Aug. 18, 1967), a lively, undogmatic compendium of doctrine that reflects the most recent radical insights of theologians and scripture scholars. First the Roman Curia ordered a thorough study of the Dutch original to make sure that it contained no errors. Then Bishop Robert F. Joyce of Burlington, Vt., withdrew his imprimatur (permission to publish) from the American edition, and Holland's Bernard Jan Cardinal Alfrink complained that the book was going to press with an unauthorized use of his original imprimatur. Finally, Los Angeles' crusty James Francis Cardinal Mclntyre banned it from the church-run bookstore in his archdiocese. The stores operated by Boston's Daughters of St. Paul also refused to display it.

Nonetheless, the Dutch catechism has become one of the year's religious bestsellers. Herder & Herder, publisher of the American edition, reports that its first printing of 75,000 copies was sold out in three weeks. Although the National Conference of Catholic Bishops this month decided that the catechism should not be used in parochial schools, some Catholic colleges have ordered it for their religion courses. What was written for the Dutch is apparently destined to instruct the world. In The Netherlands, where the catechism has sold more than 400,000 copies so far, its publishers report that ten new translations will go to press in 1968".


Note:  I have been unable to discover the precise reason why the Vatican prelates tried unsuccessfully to ban the publication of the New Catholic Catechism.  If anyone knows I would appreciate  the exact reasoning behind it. It may not have had anything to do with the question of homosexuality. 



Saturday, 6 March 2010

Dutch gay protest over Communion




Headline: from BBC NEWS, Feb. 28, 2010 'Den Bosch, Netherlands, Dutch gay protest over communion'

"Hundreds of Dutch activists, dressed in pink wigs and clothes, recently staged a protest at a Mass over the Roman Catholic policy of denying communion to practising homosexuals. The dispute began earlier this month when a priest in a nearby town refused communion to an openly gay man. Several hundred demonstrators, dressed in pink wigs and clothes, left the church in protest. A man at the centre of the row has said he wants equal treatment - if he is regarded as a sinner, he wants the priest to refuse communion to all other sinners too".

The BBC story was subsequently also reported in the Holy Post section of the National Post. As could be expected it raised a Holy furor by some bloggers.

Note: As author of this blog I do not condone the reported outlandish behaviour by the gay demonstrators on Church property in any way. My primary aim is to draw attention to those who use communion as a means of determining 'who is worthy and who is not'. This is strictly a matter between the individual and God. Any teaching that diminishes the individual or group in the eyes of God and prohibits them from taking part in the sacraments cannot be considered to have been communicated by an unconditionally loving God.

Many Catholics see official church teachings as the final word on many of the issues facing the world today. These same individuals believe that to be a 'good Catholic' means to accept these teachings without question and without any private or personal discernment- and the need to interpret these teachings against the greater Gospel values. Perhaps more importantly Catholics need to understand that official teachings on homosexuality are quite recent. Definitive Vatican teachings on sexuality are very much a mid-twentieth century phenomenon. The 1969 Catholic Catechism describes homosexuality as follows: "It is not the fault of the individual if he or she is not attracted to the other sex. The causes of homosexuality are unknown. In their human isolation, they look for friendship. But even where they find true and loyal responses, the perfect fulfilment of their human longings is not granted them".


Compare this compassionate view with the one expressed by Pope Benedict XVI as Cardinal to the Bishops of the Church, 'On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons'(1986) describing
homosexuality as an intrinsic moral evil and that gay services are not to be tolerated and that Church facilities cannot be made available [for them]".

These conflicting statements reveal the struggle in which the Catholic Church finds itself today. Regardless, Catholics are encouraged by Canon Law to seek resolution to these important questions by considering the matter in the light of exercising religious freedom, as well as our responsibility to follow one's informed conscience.

Because some Catholics have adopted a comfort zone based on certain adopted 'belief systems' it may be of value to consider the following reflection:

"We must move from a belief-based religion to a practice-based religion, or little will change. We will merely continue to argue about what we are supposed to believe and who the unbelievers are." - Richard Rohr, The Naked Now

Readers to the blog on the Holy Post were then invited to again reflect on the events that took place in Holland in the following context:

The gay group protesting in Holland apparently wore pink wigs and clothing making them visual targets for easy identification. In this guise they are, according to some, sinners who have no right to receive communion or be given shelter in any official church facilities. The rest of us can easily hide our sins underneath our Sunday fineries while we piously receive communion and then smugly condemn those who wear their sins on their sleeves. (Remember a vast majority of Catholics do not follow church teachings on birth control).

And quoting Fr. Richard Rohr "We Christians, who dare to worship the scapegoat, Jesus, became many times in history the primary scapegoaters ourselves—of Jews, heretics, sinners, witches, homosexuals, the poor, the natives in the New World, slaves, other denominations, and other religions. It's rather hard to believe that we missed such a central message.

The pattern of exporting our evil elsewhere, and righteously hating it there, with impunity, is in the hardwiring of all peoples. After all, our religious task is to separate from evil, isn't it? That is the well-disguised lie! Any exclusionary process of thinking, any exclusively dualistic thinking, will always create violent and hateful people on some level.

This I state as an absolute, and precisely because the cross revealed it to me. The crucifixion scene is our standing icon stating both the problem and the solution for all of history."

Have we forgotten that there was a religious group in the previous century who also wore a specific badge that gave some the right to kill them - all 6 million or so - including gays because they were gay?

To avoid a situation similar to what happened in Holland this week it might help by putting a big sign outside churches stating: 'Homosexuals not welcome!' Or better yet 'Sinners not Welcome'! that would give Jesus the day off from his already hectic Sunday schedule.

For some Holy Post readers any defence in support of homosexuals was seen as pure heresy. One reader stated:

"There are NO conflicting Church teachings on homosexuality. While we all have the responsibility to follow our own conscience, we also have the responsibility to form it well, and to know and understand what these teachings are. Religious freedom does not entail just doing your own thing ... otherwise, the door of the RCC is wide open ... for you to leave, that is".

To which I posted the following:

These issues should never become points of division. Rather they should be seen as opportunities for dialogue and exploration. God's creation is ongoing and so should our understanding of humankind. Based on your insensitive judgment - If I were to differentiate RCC from Christianity the latter as following Christ, then I should gladly accept your invitation to leave – but remember that doesn't solve the problem. It needs healing. Remain open to the Spirit – its A Matter of the Heart!

Which prompted the following retort:

"I have nothing against "remaining open to the spirit". However, one needs wisdom to discern spirits. Do you believe you are holier and wiser than 2000 years of tradition and teaching? Do you believe you can abolish what is written in scripture? Do you believe creation is in some state of "spiritual evolution"? Because if so, you classify as New Age".

Still another individual wrote:

"This isn't about scapegoating it's about not profaning the body of Christ. It was a different thing if the priest had known what the Carnival Prince was up to, but he was aggressively flaunting sin for all to see. This is causing scandal. As for all the exclusionary talk - it was Jesus who said enter through the narrow gate. We can't pick and choose what we want to follow".

Prompting this personal message:

I believe when Jesus spoke of the 'narrow gate' he was metaphorically referring to 'the way of love'. That is without question the most difficult gate for us to enter and path to follow. At times we feel so challenged (offended) that we re-act with instant hatred. At that point Jesus calls us to be pro-active and seek the narrow gate. It means dropping all our pretenses, our biases, our judgments, our ego and letting the love of Christ become our way of seeing, responding, etc.



Which was followed by this unfortunate reply:

"You are entitled to your own opinion but there's something called Objective morality. A Natural Law. Love is not divorced from it. Instead of spending your time reading New Age philosophies, you might want to study Catholicism and its teachings on Realist ethics, etc."

The question of Homosexuality and their participation in the Eucharist is a very sensitive and difficult issue for a lot of people, especially those who feel bound to strict church teaching. But as the institution continues in the direction of more absolutes, rigidity and exclusivity it becomes increasingly difficult for many of us to remain neutral. Some of the advice offered is growing tiresome if not typical - 'if you don't like it leave'. This could hardly be the expected response from Jesus. Still, there are others who would prefer that we do not discuss such issues, since it might lead to confrontation and division. For those people I would suggest that they read about what went on behind the scenes during Vatican II, the argument about circumcision between Peter and Paul, the confrontation between Jesus and some of the Pharisees! It could be said that for the sake of peace perhaps it is better to avoid any controversial issues altogether. But then I find myself asking is that being faithful to what I have come to believe in my heart? (there are times in my life when I find homosexual behaviour, i.e., parades extremely offensive) But ultimately I have to ask myself 'what would Jesus do? Would he truly refuse those who seek him regardless of their background?

In a final attempt to bring this matter to a level of unbiased Christian compassion and understanding I ask readers to consult a recognized expert on sexual behaviour in the Roman Catholic Church. A.W. Richard Sipe is devoted full time to research into the sexual and celibate practises of Roman Catholic bishops and priests. His website can be reached at http://www.richardsipe.com/

which covers such concerns as:

  • Celibacy/Sex/Catholic Church
  • Gay Bishops - see also section on Natural Law
  • Sexual Active Catholic Clergy
  • Celibacy, sex and research, etc.
Note: A.W. Sipe was the chief investigator for the sexual abuse case which took place at a Catholic institution in Canada almost twenty years ago.

One final question: Is it perhaps time to reflect on the unique gifts homosexuals bring to the church and the rest of humanity?

In the meantime readers are invited to reflect on the following article 'What should a Gay Catholic Do? at
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=81913739-3048-741E-5405178212524077 by Fr. James Martin, S.J.

IMPORTANT NOTE: just days after this post readers of the Washington Post learned that Desmond Tutu made this comment about homosexuals "It is time to stand up against another wrong. Gay, Lesbian, transexual and transgendered people are part of so many families. They are part of the human family. They are part of God's family".