|
|
|
KARL KEATING'S E-LETTER
TOPICS:
"HIS BLOOD BE UPON US AND OUR CHILDREN"
BEING DISORDERED vs. HAVING A DISORDER
FURTHER THOUGHTS ON ORDAINING HOMOSEXUALS
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
It's time to look at what readers have said about recent (and apparently
controversial) E-Letters. Not that controversy is a bad thing, of course.
I'd never say that. After all, my most recent book is titled "Controversies:
High Level Catholic Apologetics." I should be so dumb as to discourage
sales?
HEREDITARY GUILT FOR CHRIST'S DEATH?
In the January
13 E-Letter I referred to a web site that carries all the
back issues of "The Point," a little journal published by Fr. Leonard
Feeney's group in the 1950s. The web site also includes overtly anti-Semitic
essays that were not written by people associated with Feeney. One of the
essays ascribes corporate guilt for Christ's death to today's Jews.
A reader who asks to remain anonymous writes,
"According to the modern mind-set, statements like 'the Jews corporately
murdered Christ,' 'the Jews all bear the guilt of the murder of Christ,' and
'the Jews are all cursed for their deicide' do have quite a harsh,
anti-Semitic tone to them. But what I find lacking in your analysis is an
address to the question of which position can be more easily reconciled with
Matthew 27:25: 'His blood be upon us and our children.' How else can this be
interpreted, other than to say that there is some corporate responsibility
for the death of our Lord? If this is in Scripture, then who are we to tone
it down, or worse yet, to tune it out, for the sake of ecumenism, or any
other reason?"
I certainly don't advocate "toning down" or "tuning out" Scripture. No need
to. I think there is a satisfying answer for my inquirer.
Scripture reports what people say but, in so reporting, does not necessarily
endorse what they say. Some in the mob shouted "His blood be upon us and our
children," but that does not prove that the guilt for Christ's death has
been transferred to the offspring of those in the mob.
Maybe those who shouted did want their descendants to share in the blame,
but their wish was not controlling. Those who were present and pressed for
Christ's death were responsible for his execution. Those of later
generations were not, except in the sense that all men are responsible--that
is, the sins of any one of us would have necessitated redemption by God.
Adam and Eve committed the original sin--called "original" because it
occurred at the origin of the human race. They incurred guilt for that sin.
Their offspring--including us--did not. What we have been saddled with is
not the guilt of their sin but the consequences of their sin. They forfeited
the preternatural gifts God had given them, and that forfeiture has extended
through all the generations. But the guilt of that first sin was theirs
alone.
Similarly for the Passion and Crucifixion. Those Jews who instigated and
participated in the death of Christ incurred guilt for what they did.
(Similarly for the Romans, of course.) Their offspring did not, and that is
why no one who was not a participant in what happened on Good Friday can
have direct, personal guilt. "His blood be upon us and our children" was
only half true: His blood was upon those who killed him--but not on their
children.
HAVING, RATHER THAN BEING, A DISORDER
Fr. Omar A. Huesca of Miami Beach, responding to the February 3 E-Letter,
reminds me that I should have mentioned NARTH, the National Association for
the Research and Therapy of Homosexuals (www.narth.com).
NARTH is an association of psychiatrists, psychologists, and other health
professionals who investigate same-sex attraction. Its president is Joseph
Nicolosi, Ph.D. NARTH notes that "there is no scientific research indicating
a biological or genetic cause for homosexuality. Biological factors may play
a role in the predisposition to homosexuality. However, this is true of many
other psychological conditions."
Homosexuality can be treated--not always successfully, but that is true of
other disorders also. Some patients are cured completely, some see
measurable improvement, and some report no improvement at all. Treatment
consists of psychological counseling, spiritual formation, and support
groups (such as Courage, www.couragerc.net).
In the February 3 E-Letter I noted that homosexuality is a disorder (as the
Church teaches), and we should be careful not say that a homosexual "is
disordered" but that he "has a disorder." The former phrase leaves people
with the impression that everything about the person is wrong, and that is a
wrong impression. I made a parallel to the case of the alcoholic. He is more
than his alcoholism.
The point was not lost on a woman who wrote, "I'm an alcoholic, but I don't
feel that my whole 'self/being' is 'disordered' either!" This distinction is
easy to keep in mind when we're dealing with physical disorders. We are not
inclined to think that someone with a gimpy leg must have a gimpy arm, but
it is easy to fall into the error of thinking that someone with a
psychological disorder must have other disorders too.
SHOULD CHASTE HOMOSEXUALS BE ORDAINED?
Several readers challenged me on my three-point prescription for dealing
with homosexuality in the priesthood. They liked the first two points
(getting rid of "gay" priests immediately and letting chaste homosexuals
continue in ministry until normal retirement), but they didn't like the
third point (not ordaining even chaste homosexuals).
Louis Tourtellotte spoke well for these readers: "I do agree that 'gays'
should be excluded from the priesthood but why chaste homosexuals? Every man
struggles with some sort of sin. Why should we exclude chaste homosexuals
from the priesthood when they are just as subject to sinning as any other
man? Isn't it just as likely for a chaste homosexual to sin as a chaste
heterosexual?"
Conly Lynch, who is a physician, went a bit further: "How can you say that
people with that particular disorder, even if chaste, should not be
ordained? Should recovering alcoholics also be excluded from the priesthood
or people with treated mental illness like depression or anxiety? What about
people with medical conditions in remission or physical handicaps?"
I appreciate the arguments and the charity that is evident behind them, but
I'll stick with my third point as written. Some reasons why:
1. Not everyone who thinks he has a vocation to the priesthood really has
one. Easy proof: Women who think they have a vocation. We know that women
can't be ordained and never will be ordained. From this I conclude that God
would not give a woman a calling to the priesthood (he is not a trickster).
Thus, any woman who thinks she has a call is mistaken. Men can be mistaken
too.
2. Ever since seminaries were formalized after the Council of Trent, they
have been turning down men who think they have a vocation to the priesthood.
The turn-downs have been for many reasons, most of them sensible (though in
recent years some of them have been spurious). Men with medical or
psychological disabilities routinely are denied admission to seminaries, as
are "slow learners."
Sometimes denials are not made prudently, and there always are delightful
exceptions. Young Jean Vianney was not a bright bulb; he had a tough time in
his studies. Still, he made it to ordination and ended up a great priest and
saint, best known to us as the Cure d'Ars. Still, as a rule, it is prudent
to exclude those who aren't up to the intellectual, psychological, or
physical standards.
Men are ordained not to satisfy their own spiritual longings but to serve
their flocks, and there are medical and mental conditions that militate
against their being able to do that.
3. We should be pleased to learn that an alcoholic is "recovering," but
would we hire such a man to work at a winery as a wine taster? That would be
asking for trouble, both for him and for those around him.
Ditto for the recovering alcoholic who is thinking about entering the
priesthood. A priest must handle wine as part of his sacramental duties,
and, even after the consecration, the Sacred Blood affects the body as would
plain wine (because only the substance has changed, not the accidents).
Canon law takes such things into account. A man is excluded from holy orders
if he has a "psychic defect due to which, after consultation with experts,
he is judged incapable of rightly carrying out the ministry" (can. 1041).
Alcoholism counts as such a defect, and homosexuality can be seen as one
too.
4. Do heterosexual priests fall into sexual sin? Some do, but not so
commonly, so far as I can tell, as do homosexual priests. The anecdotal
evidence I have seen over the years indicates that heterosexual priests are
not "just as likely" as homosexual priests to sin sexually. They are less
likely.
As I said in the February 3 E-Letter, usually priests reside in rectories
with other men. This poses little problem for heterosexuals but can be a big
problem for homosexuals. Look at it this way: In the case of an otherwise
chaste heterosexual priest, would we want him to lodge in a nunnery?
5. Perhaps the strongest argument is that we do not live in normal times. We
have a priesthood that has been damaged severely. To repair it will take
extraordinary measures.
In the America of 1904, one might have been able to argue that it wouldn't
have done any harm--to themselves or to the Church at large--if a few chaste
homosexuals had been ordained. But this is not 1904. We are not trying to
cure a sniffle; we are trying to bring the patient out of spiritual
pneumonia. "Take two.aspirin and call me in the morning" just won't suffice.
I admire those who face disorders with intelligence, fortitude, and
equanimity. The sober alcoholic and the chaste homosexual are to be
commended for trying to live up to the Catholic moral code, but that doesn't
mean they should be proposed for ordination.
|
|
|
[TOP]
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up