Dogma, the Pope, ssa, and a Jesuit's point view

  • Thread starter Thread starter ben182
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

ben182

Guest
Hi,

I wanted to ask what is meant by “dogma.” I also wanted to ask if it’s okay not to agree with the Pope on certain things. But before you answer, please read the story below. Please note that this thread is not primarily to debate same sex attractions but to see if the reasons given below (about dogma and following the Pope) are correct.

Here’s the story:

I went looking for a counsellor a few months ago to help me with some problems. I eventually found myself in my alma mater, a Jesuit university with a center for pastoral counselling. I met a Jesuit priest in hopes he would know something about same sex attractions and reparative therapy etc. He seemed to disagree that people with ssa could change. He told me that he never heard about reparative therapy. Nonetheless, I stuck with him in hopes he could help me with some other things. But I never was quite comfortable because he didn’t seem to give much feedback and we didn’t quite have the same rapport. Something was missing. After only three sessions, I told him again of my discomfort. He was not comfortable that I was uncomfortable so he told me that he would transfer me to another counsellor. This “counsellor” happened to be the director of the center and his next available schedule was about 1 1/2 months from that date.

Yesterday was that date. I had been doing much better recently than in the previous months but I decided to keep my appointment to meet this Jesuit director and see if I could get some regular help of some sort if necessary. To make a long story short, this is what he told me:

1)He didn’t like using the term ssa because, he said, all these support groups just make it more complicated. Call a spade a spade he said. He also said that he wasn’t some "pious priest but was there as a psycho-counsellor or something.
  1. I mentioned Courage, which I had joined, and the goals of Courage and what it is about “in my own words.” I told him that it’s a Catholic support group endorsed by PJPII for people with same sex atttractions who want to live chaste lives according to the teaching of the Church.
The Jesuit director then tells me that in the Catholic church there are two points of view—those of the pope and of well-known moral theologians who may not agree with the Pope. As far as the Pope stands, people with ssa should live chaste lives but many well-known moral theologians disagree with the Pope. He told me that we didn’t necessarily have to follow what the Pope says because there is room for reasonable argument (or something) and that what Pope JohnPaulII and Pope Benedict say about ssa is not dogma. He reasoned that, I should take note, that the Popes have not made into DOGMA certain things pertaining to ssa precisely because there are many and conflicting points of view within the church regarding this. And, since it was not dogma, one didn’t have to follow some things strictly. He said that what was important is that we follow our consciences. Oh boy, I hope I understood what he said.

3)He said that there was nothing wrong with someone with ssa having a faithful relationship(similar to marriage/no promiscuity) with someone of the same gender if this is done according to one’s conscience…he then cited Vatican II. I asked him about certain biblical passages and he said that they shouldn’t be taken literally and should be left to those theologians who knew better. I then asked him, if I had sex with someone but thought of being faithful and responsible, did that mean that I didn’t have to mention it in confession if he were my confessor? “That’s not what I said!” he said, " What I said is that it should be according to your conscience," or something. His reasoning was confusing at times but I dared not provoke the director. He seemed to reason for his own satisfaction.

4)I explained to him that I was seeing a spiritual
director. He came to the conclusion from all I had said about many things that I was sticking to the “papal point of view” and that because of that I would be “stuck.” That he didn’t see any point in me going back there unless I let go of that and wanted to “discern” and think things for myself( and not just be fed with what all these "support groups"were telling me). I asked him if he could recommend another counsellor elsewhere…even a secular one…just in case I had some emotional problems later. He said that would be useless since it was all tied up with
my “homosexuality” and since I didn’t understand
his point of view. So he refused to recommend any other place. He
also said that the “papal point of view” was very legalistic or to the
letter of the law instead of being compassionate and according to
the “spirit” of the law.

So what is “dogma?’” Did the reason of the Jesuit director of this pastoral couselling center make sense? And what about following the pope and the other points.

Thanks for any constructive comments.
 
God bless you, Ben. It’s great that you live in an area with a Courage chapter–my nearest opportunity is three hours away.

While there are a lot of complicated questions here, the bottom line in my mind is that the Church’s teaching on homosexuality has always been and will always be consistent. It is not an arbitrary “ruling” by JP2 or B16. Sacred Scripture, Tradition, the Magisterium all point to the same truth. In modern times, we have the brief passages in the Catechism, the Pastoral letter to the Bishops by then-Card. Ratzinger, and especially the Theology of the Body–none of it contradicts the other. Those “moral theologians” who dissent on this teaching are wrong, and I’m quite sure that the issue of SSA is not the only issue they do dissent on.

So, your counselor is wrong. I would lean heavily on your Courage group and your spiritual director. If you can continue to get help from your counselor on other issues without getting into arguments over SSA and Church teaching, it might be OK to continue, but I imagine at some point it’s going to be too tense.

Just a few random thoughts–will keep you in my prayers.
 
This list may be disputed at points, but I assume it’s pretty close:

davidmacd.com/catholic/dogma.htm

As you see, it’s pretty core, and doesn’t speak that much about morals.

The real question is, is whether or not you have to conform to the doctrinal teachings regarding morality.

Once again, a Jesuit deconstructs the Faith, but never seems to get around to re-constructing it.
 
Ben, I agree with franksta. When in doubt, go to the Catechism. You can find the entire text online. You can immediately identify dissent.
 
David MacDonald’s list (from AkronPonderer) is good. The only “dogma” that would apply here is the simple fact that marriage is indissoluble and can only be between a man and a woman. My experience has been that dissenters often throw out the term “dogma” to indicate any Church teaching they happen to disagree with.
 
While I believe every word you said, I sincerely hope you misunderstood this priest. If he actually said this and meant it, he is seriously confused.

The Church speaks authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. Dogmas are entirely about matters of faith. So you will never see a dogma regarding SSA. Neither will you see a dogma about abortion, murder or bank robbing but most people agree that these are immoral.

There is more Church documentation about some moral issues than others. For example, while you will find Catechism references about stealing as a sinful act, you will find volumes of Church documents that deal with sexual morality. The Theology of the Body is a treasure for the Church as is Humane Vitae. SSA has been addressed pretty thoroughly and definitively.

So the priest was correct that this is not a Dogma. That is not the same as saying this is something you can chose whether or not to follow. Doctrines are just as authoritative. The doctrine of the Church have been defined by Popes and by Councils.

What, if you remember, was he referring to in Vatican II documents. There is nothing there, I guarantee you, that says that homosexual activity is just a matter of personal conscience.

Can someone at Courage recommend a counselor to you that perhaps will be supportive of your journey rather than downplay your decisions?

Bless you for this hard choice and I will keep you (and others on this forum who have shared like stories) in my prayers.
 
Here is some interesting reading:

Summary of Categories of Belief

Definitively Proposed
Doctrines definitively proposed by the Church on faith and morals which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed. They can be defined by:
a) the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra
b) the College of Bishops gathered in council
c) taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the
Church as sententia definitive tenenda.

ASSENT REQUIRED These doctrines require firm and definitive assent based on theological faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church. There is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable consent which must be given to teachings set forth as I. divinely revealed and II. those proposed as to be definitively held.

**EXAMPLES
******·****the teaching on the illicitness of fornication
 
Thanks to everyone for your replies so far. I’m going to catch up on them in 12 or so hours. It’s almost midnight here in Manila and I was catching up on some work. See you later. I’ll briefly reply to Corki’s post though right now.

Ben
 
Corki said:
While I believe every word you said, I sincerely hope you misunderstood this priest. If he actually said this and meant it, he is seriously confused.

The Church speaks authoritatively on matters of faith and morals. Dogmas are entirely about matters of faith. So you will never see a dogma regarding SSA. Neither will you see a dogma about abortion, murder or bank robbing but most people agree that these are immoral.

There is more Church documentation about some moral issues than others. For example, while you will find Catechism references about stealing as a sinful act, you will find volumes of Church documents that deal with sexual morality. The Theology of the Body is a treasure for the Church as is Humane Vitae. SSA has been addressed pretty thoroughly and definitively.

So the priest was correct that this is not a Dogma. That is not the same as saying this is something you can chose whether or not to follow. Doctrines are just as authoritative. The doctrine of the Church have been defined by Popes and by Councils.

What, if you remember, was he referring to in Vatican II documents. There is nothing there, I guarantee you, that says that homosexual activity is just a matter of personal conscience.

Can someone at Courage recommend a counselor to you that perhaps will be supportive of your journey rather than downplay your decisions?

Bless you for this hard choice and I will keep you (and others on this forum who have shared like stories) in my prayers.
Click to expand...
Hi Corki,

I actually tried to verify what he said and he made it clear…nothing wrong, according to him, with faithful, non-promiscuous same sex relations. He believed in “compassion,” he said.

He said that Vatican II cites that something about the morality of one’s action depending on one’s moral judgement or conscience. I wish I could be more explicit but he seemed a bit imposing and I didn’t want to offend that priest. A big picture of him was on display in the center’s lobby and he had recognitions and books as well. He’s a well-known guy apparently and the university he’s in is influential here in Manila. Perhaps he felt comfortable cornering me in his office…his reasoning certainly seemed biased but I couldn’t argue and respect him at the same time. He told me that he wasn’t pious priest…that he was there as a counsellor/professional. Oh boy. I could write more later…i posted some of these at COL(Courage Online).

The only counsellor the local Courage chapter previously recommended to me was in a psycho-trauma clinic…inappropriate for my case and the session were held in cubicles for free and for everyone to hear 😃 Oh whoa. Incidentally, the counsellor there also had a similar point of view regarding “gay” being okay, even if he was in a Catholic University. But he was nicer and more helpful with other issues. The Jesuit practically told me not to come back without changing my point of view.

I’ll write more later. My eyes are getting heavy. Thanks:)
 
ben182 said:
Hi Corki,

I actually tried to verify what he said and he made it clear…nothing wrong, according to him, with faithful, non-promiscuous same sex relations. He believed in “compassion,” he said.

Ah! Unfortunately, his “compassion” takes the form of not wanting to tell someone that they should not sin. This is not compassion at all.

He said that Vatican II cites that something about the morality of one’s action depending on one’s moral judgement or conscience.

Yes, we must follow our conscience. However, what he omits is that we must also form our conscience correctly, and whenever we come to a conclusion that is different from what the Church teaches, then our conscience is mistaken.

I wish I could be more explicit but he seemed a bit imposing and I didn’t want to offend that priest. A big picture of him was on display in the center’s lobby and he had recognitions and books as well. He’s a well-known guy apparently and the university he’s in is influential here in Manila. Perhaps he felt comfortable cornering me in his office…his reasoning certainly seemed biased but I couldn’t argue and respect him at the same time. He told me that he wasn’t pious priest…that he was there as a counsellor/professional.

If I were in your position, I would avoid that priest like the plague!! I would also pray for his conversion!! So, why can’t he be a pious priest as well as a counsellor? In fact, he should be both! A priest not pious? What sort of priest is that?****

I’ll write more later. My eyes are getting heavy. Thanks:)
Click to expand...
**Ben, do not give up. Do not allow yourself to be persuaded by faulty theology. Pray frequently. **
 
ben182 said:
Hi,

. . .
1)He didn’t like using the term ssa because, he said, all these support groups just make it more complicated. Call a spade a spade he said. He also said that he wasn’t some "pious priest but was there as a psycho-counsellor or something.
  1. I mentioned Courage, which I had joined, and the goals of Courage and what it is about “in my own words.” I told him that it’s a Catholic support group endorsed by PJPII for people with same sex atttractions who want to live chaste lives according to the teaching of the Church.
The Jesuit director then tells me that in the Catholic church there are two points of view—those of the pope and of well-known moral theologians who may not agree with the Pope. As far as the Pope stands, people with ssa should live chaste lives but many well-known moral theologians disagree with the Pope. He told me that we didn’t necessarily have to follow what the Pope says because there is room for reasonable argument (or something) and that what Pope JohnPaulII and Pope Benedict say about ssa is not dogma. He reasoned that, I should take note, that the Popes have not made into DOGMA certain things pertaining to ssa precisely because there are many and conflicting points of view within the church regarding this. And, since it was not dogma, one didn’t have to follow some things strictly. He said that what was important is that we follow our consciences. Oh boy, I hope I understood what he said.

3)He said that there was nothing wrong with someone with ssa having a faithful relationship(similar to marriage/no promiscuity) with someone of the same gender if this is done according to one’s conscience…he then cited Vatican II. I asked him about certain biblical passages and he said that they shouldn’t be taken literally and should be left to those theologians who knew better. I then asked him, if I had sex with someone but thought of being faithful and responsible, did that mean that I didn’t have to mention it in confession if he were my confessor? “That’s not what I said!” he said, " What I said is that it should be according to your conscience," or something. His reasoning was confusing at times but I dared not provoke the director. He seemed to reason for his own satisfaction.

4)I explained to him that I was seeing a spiritual
director. He came to the conclusion from all I had said about many things that I was sticking to the “papal point of view” and that because of that I would be “stuck.” That he didn’t see any point in me going back there unless I let go of that and wanted to “discern” and think things for myself( and not just be fed with what all these "support groups"were telling me). I asked him if he could recommend another counsellor elsewhere…even a secular one…just in case I had some emotional problems later. He said that would be useless since it was all tied up with
my “homosexuality” and since I didn’t understand
his point of view. So he refused to recommend any other place. He
also said that the “papal point of view” was very legalistic or to the
letter of the law instead of being compassionate and according to
the “spirit” of the law.

So what is “dogma?’” Did the reason of the Jesuit director of this pastoral couselling center make sense? And what about following the pope and the other points.

Thanks for any constructive comments.
Click to expand...
If you are reporting this Priest’s comments accurately (and I have no trouble believing that you are!), then he is not only morally and intellectually an adolescent, he is misrepresenting the teaching of the Church. You are so far ahead of him that he can’t even see where you are going. Get out of there FAST!

Godspeed.
 
didn’t Jesuitism split off from Catholicism many years ago?
 
AkronPonderer said:
didn’t Jesuitism split off from Catholicism many years ago?
Click to expand...
:rotfl: :rotfl: A lot of Jesuits seem to be flying their own plane for the past 40 years, but no: The Society of Jesus is still a recognized society of apostolic life in the Catholic Church and there are many outstanding, orthodox Jesuits in the Society – note Fr. Mitchell Pacwa, Fr. James Fessio, Fr. James V. Schall.
 
Hi everyone,

A chaste friend of mine with ssa wrote me the following in response to my post.:

" On the other hand, I have also come to perceive that many of us “serious” types who strive to follow the Church’s teachings need to get shaken up lest we fall for the trap of believing that our security lies not in Jesus but in rules. Many I think who identify with Courage experience a tremendous amount of fear and have a difficult time accepting the many and various implications of living with SSA, and this is I think why many priests look down on Courage and feel that it keeps people from growing spiritually. At times I think priests and religious who are mindful of the pitfalls of remaining fear and shame-bound try to shake folks like us up to not fall for that trap. Some though aren’t terribly tactful or gentle about that, and of course others–like this Jesuit you spoke with–have seemingly fallen for the erroneous idea that the Church’s consistent wisdom on SSA is “old hat”. "

Honestly, what that Jesuit said has me thinking a bit. It hasn’t shaken me so much but I’ve been wondering if I am too fearful and too close-minded about certain things like giving and receiving affection. I wouldn’t go as far as he said but it does make me question if I have been too hard on myself. I wonder if there was some lesson or valid point that, perhaps, he took too far.

When I asked the Jesuit about emotional problems, he told me that it was inevitable and tied up with the homosexuality. He told me that if I wanted help on that it would be useless unless I changed my point of view. He told me that I could not possibly separate the emotional problems from the homosexuality or the rest of myself and that I would be experiencing that more and more. Truth is that I had already experienced a lot of that in the past. I don’t know if it will get more intense,I think and hope that things are getting better or in control. But the Jesuit told me that as I discovered the need for “closeness” these things will just keep surfacing. This seemed logical to me.

However, he also went as far as saying that it would inevitably lead to sex. I then questioned this since I thought that this was just a need for more friendships and affection. I mean I know that there is a sexual drive somewhere there but I didnt think I needed to give in to it. I thought that with chaste friendships we would manage through. Well, he just brushed that off and said that my problem with the friendship thing was rooted in my homosexuality. Boy, after months of being told I was a “child of God,” here’s a priest who takes me back to where I began…thinking of myself as a “homosexual.”

But I must admit wondering if there was some valid point to learn in this. Yes, the fact is that I have lived with ssa. And realities must be seen. But, on the other hand, I felt like I’ve progressed much keeping chaste. But then again, on the other hand, it makes me wonder if I keep myself too “safe” and follow the too predictable rules instead of finding things for my own self.

Just some thoughts I thought I’d add to the thread.

Have good evening everyone.
 
Hmmm…He says when it comes to conscience you should just follow yours, but when it comes to the bible we should leave this up to theologians?

Actually you have an obligation to research and study like a theologian before forming your conscience.

These Jesuits are doing great harm and dissent like this needs to be addressed.
 
fix said:
Here is some interesting reading:

Summary of Categories of Belief

Definitively Proposed
Doctrines definitively proposed by the Church on faith and morals which are necessary for faithfully keeping and expounding the deposit of faith, even if they have not been proposed by the Magisterium of the Church as formally revealed. They can be defined by:
a) the Roman Pontiff speaking ex cathedra
b) the College of Bishops gathered in council
c) taught infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the
Church as sententia definitive tenenda.

ASSENT REQUIRED These doctrines require firm and definitive assent based on theological faith in the Holy Spirit’s assistance to the Church’s Magisterium and on the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium in these matters. Whoever denies these truths would be in a position of rejecting a truth of Catholic doctrine and would therefore no longer be in full communion with the Catholic Church. There is no difference with respect to the full and irrevocable consent which must be given to teachings set forth as I. divinely revealed and II. those proposed as to be definitively held.

**EXAMPLES
******·****the teaching on the illicitness of fornication
Click to expand...
Thanks for this Fix and the link too. This is helpful.

Ben
 
HI everyone,

I was able to give more time to read and reflect on each of your replies. Thanks for clarifying the difference between the dogma and the doctrinal teachings regarding morality. Thanks particularly to AkronP, Franksta, Fix and Corki for the specific information you gave. I probably should study more the materials you linked. I’m glad I posted my thread over here.

Benjie
 
I hope you didn’t go back to him. His reasoning ability and “point of view” shows what is wrong in some factions of the Church. Well-known moral theologians are not part of the official office of Teaching Magisterium, although they think they are their own teaching authority. Stay with Courage…they have spiritual directors or can lead you to one who is authentic to the teachings of the Church on this matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top