Former Catholic head of Milwaukee admits he's gay

[VanDoodah]

I see your point, but we are given free will. God’s omniscience doesn’t take away from our ability to obey or disobey (or have lack of knowledge of God’s will.) He doesn’t want to create puppets.

The sexual abuse of minors by Catholic priests is disgusting, disturbing, and dismaying. It is a terrible thing.

But I disagree with you that Christians think they have moral authority over others. Yes, we do have certain beliefs, just as you have certain beliefs. In a free society, the open exchange of ideas involves persuading people to adopt your beliefs, be they political, religious, aesthetic, or what have you. Yes, in the past Christians have tried to engage in social engineering, such as laws against sodomy. I think such laws are a mistake and constitute a tyranny of the majority.

And Jesus

The bit in bold could be debated endlessly, with little progress made. However, I am simply going to recommend that you read Herbert McCabe’s lecture entitled “Freedom”, which can be found in the book “God Matters”. In it, McCabe (a Catholic philosopher and theologian in the Thomist tradition) lays out a theological case against free will.

I will also ask you this - if immoral acts are the result of free will, then are immoral acts committed in Heaven? If they aren’t, then surely you concede that immoral acts are not the necessary result of free will, and that free will and moral perfection are not mutually exclusive? If, on he other hand, there is immorality in Heaven, then surely it isn’t Heaven and Christianity is based on myths?

As to the bit that isn’t in bold - I am not trying to argue that Christians should be disallowed from voicing their opinions in public. I believe that free speech is vital to a good society, and as such I support the right of Christias to spew their nonsense in public. However, people who believe that they have a right to dictate to others what they can and can’t do in their private lives annoy me. Why is the Catholic Church so concerned by homosexuality and contraception? Aren’t their more important issues to be talking about? Why isn’t the Church trying to combat poverty, AIDS, war, famine, genocide etc? Apparently the genocide in Darfur isn’t important enough for a Chuch convinced that it can eradicate homosexuality from the face of the planet.

 

[Dale_M]

The bit in bold could be debated endlessly, with little progress made. However, I am simply going to recommend that you read Herbert McCabe’s lecture entitled “Freedom”, which can be found in the book “God Matters”. In it, McCabe (a Catholic philosopher and theologian in the Thomist tradition) lays out a theological case against free will.

Thank you. I have heard good things about Herbert McCabe, and although my to-read list is rather lengthy, I will definitely purchase his book and give it a whirl.

I will also ask you this - if immoral acts are the result of free will, then are immoral acts committed in Heaven? If they aren’t, then surely you concede that immoral acts are not the necessary result of free will, and that free will and moral perfection are not mutually exclusive?

I’m a bit out of my league here, so may get things wrong (my apologies in advance if someone else corrects me), but my understanding is that only saints go to Heaven and saints have managed to align their wills (through personal effort) perfectly with God’s will. The freedom to choose otherwise is possible, but they don’t want to make that choice.

But, again, I’m in over my head on this.

As to the bit that isn’t in bold - I am not trying to argue that Christians should be disallowed from voicing their opinions in public. I believe that free speech is vital to a good society, and as such I support the right of Christias to spew their nonsense in public. However, people who believe that they have a right to dictate to others what they can and can’t do in their private lives annoy me.

Sometimes Christians can come across as smug, self-righteous and dictatorial. You are right. I think they are missing some key concepts in Christianity, and I think they make poor evangelists. Certainly they cast other Christians in a poor light.

Why is the Catholic Church so concerned by homosexuality and contraception? Aren’t their more important issues to be talking about?

The Catholic Church’s position on these topics, as I understand, are rooted in their natural law theory. I am… going to have to let someone else defend that!

Why isn’t the Church trying to combat poverty, AIDS, war, famine, genocide etc? Apparently the genocide in Darfur isn’t important enough for a Chuch convinced that it can eradicate homosexuality from the face of the planet.

Homosexuality will never be eradicated, except in some science fiction future. The concern of the Catholic Church is persuading homosexuals not to engage in sex. The Church is actually protective of homosexuals from being abused. I’ll quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is pretty much the manual of Catholic teachings:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

Yes, its hardly what homosexuals want to hear. But its not as harsh as the teachings in some Christian denominations. For example, the Church doesn’t try force homosexual to become heterosexuals.

As for the various world problems which you have mentioned, I think the Catholic Church is involved in addressing them. The Church has multiple agencies and affiliated organizations which are involved in relief work. The topic is so big, perhaps a new thread would be needed to discuss these issues.

 

[tuviskazinai]

As for the various world problems which you have mentioned, I think the Catholic Church is involved in addressing them. The Church has multiple agencies and affiliated organizations which are involved in relief work. The topic is so big, perhaps a new thread would be needed to discuss these issues.

Hi VanDoodah,

I see that you are new here. Welcome to the forum!
I have a few thoughts about some of the points you raise…they are really interesting. I do agree with Dale_M, though…since these questions are a bit off-topic, would you perhaps like to start a new thread or threads? (Eg, “McCabe on free will” under philosophy, etc?) If you do, please post a link in this thread, so that we can follow you there!

So just a few thoughts:

• As for McCabe, I haven’t read him either, but from what I can tell and have heard, he is not against free will…he’s just trying to nuance our understanding of it:

“The idea that God’s causality could interfere with my freedom can only arise from an idolatrous notion of God as a very large and powerful creature – a part of the world."

So he is perhaps just trying to redefine our categories, which are only falsely dichotomous. But maybe you could explain what he says in his book, and we could have a discussion in the Philosophy forum? It sounds fascinating.

• As for the Church interfering in people’s “private lives,” well, it’s important to remember that the Pope doesn’t send in a pack of Swiss guards to arrest everyone who has sex with a condom! People have this notion of a bullying Church, but of course we are free to do everything we want within the bounds of the law. (If the Church tries to influence the civic, legal discussion of abortion, for instance, it’s because we believe that this is simply not a matter of privacy but of the protection of human life.) All the Church can do is say that it believes contraception, or adultery, or whatever is a sin. It doesn’t force anyone to accept these practices. We can ignore these teachings, and well, all anyone can say is that we will see, in the end, who was right!

I also have to suggest, though, that one of the reasons the Church’s authority makes fundamental sense to me is that it doesn’t restrict itself to certain issues. It is not a political party with a ranked list of prerogatives; it sees that every single aspect of our lives, large and small, is an opportunity to discover the truth or to diverge from it, and it tries to bear witness to this vision of the radical sanctity of existence by having such a comprehensive theology. Simply not every person in the United States is involved in the genocide in Darfur; but certain people do struggle with masturbation, adultery, etc. You may not like it, but it would simply be contrary to the idea of “religion” if the Church suggested that that person’s private struggles were not as important, not as meaningful, not as worthy of comment as the certainly very serious struggles the Sudanese people are engaged in.

The Church didn’t arbitrarily decide to create a moral theology of sexuality. First she sees that sexuality is a huge part of people’s lives (which most secularists would agree with), and then she tries to understand how people should pursue the truth through sexuality. What would be arbitrary would be to ignore sexuality and produce not a single teaching on it.

You are right that it would also be wrong to ignore the situation in Darfur, for instance, but the Church doesn’t ignore it! When you write:

Why isn’t the Church trying to combat poverty, AIDS, war, famine, genocide etc?

…I can’t help but think you’re getting your information from the New York Times, which only springs on the negative news stories affecting the Church. But of course the Church addresses all of these things! 1 in 4 AIDS patients worldwide is cared for by the Church. The Church has open 2.3 million food pantries and 1.8 million soup kitchens in the United States alone. Catholic Relief Services’s microfinance program reaches over 1 million impoverished clients, of whom 70% are women. The list goes on, and on, and on. Not to mention the fact that the Pope, in his daily addresses, mentions poverty, war, immigration, and famine far, far more often than he does homosexuality, contraception, or abortion. If you read Catholic news services (I recommend www.catholicnews.com) I think you’ll be interested to see the enormity and diversity of the Church’s efforts, which the mainstream news media (understandably, since it’s not meant to be the Church’s spokesperson) doesn’t ever report on.

Anyway, I tend to blabber. Sorry about that. But please do open some threads, and let us know, and we will all be delighted to have a conversation!

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[tuviskazinai]

Ok, whoops, I just did a search of some of your posts, and I see that you did post in McCabe in the Philosophy section, and no one responded. Sorry about that. But maybe if you explained a bit about what he has to say, people would be interested in getting involved? I know I would!

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[VanDoodah]

Thank you. I have heard good things about Herbert McCabe, and although my to-read list is rather lengthy, I will definitely purchase his book and give it a whirl.

I’m a bit out of my league here, so may get things wrong (my apologies in advance if someone else corrects me), but my understanding is that only saints go to Heaven and saints have managed to align their wills (through personal effort) perfectly with God’s will. The freedom to choose otherwise is possible, but they don’t want to make that choice.

But, again, I’m in over my head on this.

Okay, you admit that you don’t know a great deal about this (neither do I), but I still find this argument unconvinving. Am I to take it that all non-saints go to Hell>? Why didn’t God create a Heaven full of saints whose wills were aligned with His, as opposed to creating a material world complete with sinners? Surely, had He done that, there would be no need for Hell and everything that existed would exist within the perfection of Heaven? I thin that God’s omniscience is rather a problem here.

The Catholic Church’s position on these topics, as I understand, are rooted in their natural law theory. I am… going to have to let someone else defend that!

Yes, they are. The Church basically argues that the “primary precept” of morality is self-preservation, and from this can be derived various secondary precepts e.g. no abortions, no homosexuality and no contraception. However, this seems to me to be a fallacious argument. Firstly, homosexuality is natural, and for “natural” law to conflict with nature seems a tad bizarre to me. Secondly, surely sex can serve other purposes besides procreation? It’s important to any adult relationship, and humans have evolved to the point where sex is not simply a matter of procreation, but rather a matter of pleasure. I would argue that contraception doesn’t conflictwith natural law.

Homosexuality will never be eradicated, except in some science fiction future. The concern of the Catholic Church is persuading homosexuals not to engage in sex. The Church is actually protective of homosexuals from being abused. I’ll quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is pretty much the manual of Catholic teachings:

va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

Yes, its hardly what homosexuals want to hear. But its not as harsh as the teachings in some Christian denominations. For example, the Church doesn’t try force homosexual to become heterosexuals.

The Church should not be involved in people’s private lives. What homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes is no concern of anyone’s. I have Catholic family (I was in fact raised a Catholic) who have no problem with homosexuality at all. The Church is out-of-touch with many of its followers, who agree that no institution should be allowed to dictate what people can and can’t do in their private lives.

As for the various world problems which you have mentioned, I think the Catholic Church is involved in addressing them. The Church has multiple agencies and affiliated organizations which are involved in relief work. The topic is so big, perhaps a new thread would be needed to discuss these issues.

I know that there are a great many Roman Catholics who are involved in charities in the Third World, and indeed charities dedicated to helping the poor and unfortunate of more prosperous countries. I do not tar all Catholics with the same brush. However, I am confident that the Church would be far, far better respected if it didn’t obsess over “issues” such as homosexuality and contraception so much. Pope Benedict XVI’s recent comments in Africa, the Church’s hardline (and it is a hardline) stance on homosexuality, contraception etc and the recent abuse scandals in Ireland are all damaging te Church’s credibility to the point where many Westerners are going to associate Catholicism with authoritiarianism, paedophilia, homophobia and a Dark Age attitude toward sex.

 

[VanDoodah]

Hi VanDoodah,

I see that you are new here. Welcome to the forum!
I have a few thoughts about some of the points you raise…they are really interesting. I do agree with Dale_M, though…since these questions are a bit off-topic, would you perhaps like to start a new thread or threads? (Eg, “McCabe on free will” under philosophy, etc?) If you do, please post a link in this thread, so that we can follow you there!

So just a few thoughts:

• As for McCabe, I haven’t read him either, but from what I can tell and have heard, he is not against free will…he’s just trying to nuance our understanding of it:

“The idea that God’s causality could interfere with my freedom can only arise from an idolatrous notion of God as a very large and powerful creature – a part of the world."

So he is perhaps just trying to redefine our categories, which are only falsely dichotomous. But maybe you could explain what he says in his book, and we could have a discussion in the Philosophy forum? It sounds fascinating.

• As for the Church interfering in people’s “private lives,” well, it’s important to remember that the Pope doesn’t send in a pack of Swiss guards to arrest everyone who has sex with a condom! People have this notion of a bullying Church, but of course we are free to do everything we want within the bounds of the law. (If the Church tries to influence the civic, legal discussion of abortion, for instance, it’s because we believe that this is simply not a matter of privacy but of the protection of human life.) All the Church can do is say that it believes contraception, or adultery, or whatever is a sin. It doesn’t force anyone to accept these practices. We can ignore these teachings, and well, all anyone can say is that we will see, in the end, who was right!

I also have to suggest, though, that one of the reasons the Church’s authority makes fundamental sense to me is that it doesn’t restrict itself to certain issues. It is not a political party with a ranked list of prerogatives; it sees that every single aspect of our lives, large and small, is an opportunity to discover the truth or to diverge from it, and it tries to bear witness to this vision of the radical sanctity of existence by having such a comprehensive theology. Simply not every person in the United States is involved in the genocide in Darfur; but certain people do struggle with masturbation, adultery, etc. You may not like it, but it would simply be contrary to the idea of “religion” if the Church suggested that that person’s private struggles were not as important, not as meaningful, not as worthy of comment as the certainly very serious struggles the Sudanese people are engaged in.

The Church didn’t arbitrarily decide to create a moral theology of sexuality. First she sees that sexuality is a huge part of people’s lives (which most secularists would agree with), and then she tries to understand how people should pursue the truth through sexuality. What would be arbitrary would be to ignore sexuality and produce not a single teaching on it.

You are right that it would also be wrong to ignore the situation in Darfur, for instance, but the Church doesn’t ignore it! When you write:

Why isn’t the Church trying to combat poverty, AIDS, war, famine, genocide etc?

…I can’t help but think you’re getting your information from the New York Times, which only springs on the negative news stories affecting the Church. But of course the Church addresses all of these things! 1 in 4 AIDS patients worldwide is cared for by the Church. The Church has open 2.3 million food pantries and 1.8 million soup kitchens in the United States alone. Catholic Relief Services’s microfinance program reaches over 1 million impoverished clients, of whom 70% are women. The list goes on, and on, and on. Not to mention the fact that the Pope, in his daily addresses, mentions poverty, war, immigration, and famine far, far more often than he does homosexuality, contraception, or abortion. If you read Catholic news services (I recommend www.catholicnews.com) I think you’ll be interested to see the enormity and diversity of the Church’s efforts, which the mainstream news media (understandably, since it’s not meant to be the Church’s spokesperson) doesn’t ever report on.

Anyway, I tend to blabber. Sorry about that. But please do open some threads, and let us know, and we will all be delighted to have a conversation!

Peace,
+AMDG+

I will start a thread on McCabe in the “Philosophy” section as soon as I am satisfied that I have phrased the question properly - it is a big issue and I don’t want to make any mistakes.

Thank you for the welcome.

 

[VanDoodah]

Ok, whoops, I just did a search of some of your posts, and I see that you did post in McCabe in the Philosophy section, and no one responded. Sorry about that. But maybe if you explained a bit about what he has to say, people would be interested in getting involved? I know I would!

Peace,
+AMDG+

I’ve posted a more detailed question.

 

[DeoSalvatoreMeo]

I haven’t read every post on this thread, so I hope I’m not repeating here, but our culture’s prurient interest in everyone else’s private lives (Jerry Springer at the extreme end) has led even our clergy to thing that the epitome of self-realization is to confess about one’s private sexual life. I hope this trend ends soon. This “Catholic head’s” confession falls into the category of TMI. (That’s “too much information” for anyone who may be unfamiliar).

 

[Dale_M]

Hi again,

Okay, you admit that you don’t know a great deal about this (neither do I), but I still find this argument unconvinving. Am I to take it that all non-saints go to Hell?

Ah, but you are forgetting Purgatory, that boot camp for Heaven where most of us sinners are likely to wind up. I think that is when many souls get straightened out.

Why didn’t God create a Heaven full of saints whose wills were aligned with His, as opposed to creating a material world complete with sinners? Surely, had He done that, there would be no need for Hell and everything that existed would exist within the perfection of Heaven? I thin that God’s omniscience is rather a problem here.

Hmmm… I will have to ponder your point. I could say that God’s thinking is beyond our ken, but that would be running away from the discussion. Actually, I guess I am running away from it anyways, but at least I am admitting I don’t know to respond.

Secondly, surely sex can serve other purposes besides procreation?

Oh, yes. The Catholic Church recognizes the unitive quality of sex, by which means a man and a woman become one. In the view of the Church, each gender is incomplete and a person is whole only in a relationship with the opposite sex. The sex, of course, happens only in the context of marriage (which itself was divinely ordained at the time of creation for the purpose of uniting man and woman)

I know, I know… I said I was going to skip talking about Natural Law. But I did want to correct a common misperception about the Catholic Church’s view of sex.

The Church should not be involved in people’s private lives. What homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes is no concern of anyone’s. I have Catholic family (I was in fact raised a Catholic) who have no problem with homosexuality at all. The Church is out-of-touch with many of its followers, who agree that no institution should be allowed to dictate what people can and can’t do in their private lives.

You are certainly are right that many Catholics do not toe the line on the moral teachings of the Church. The two explanations for this phenomenon most often cited here at CAF are poor instruction of the young (in prior years) and the willingness of individuals to maintain their Catholic identity, even after they have stopped attending church.

I guess I have no complaints about a religion wanting to regulate the private lives of its believers. Its a free choice, after all, to adhere or not to adhere. I think the problem becomes when legislation is pushed to regulate the lives of non-believers.

Pope Benedict XVI’s recent comments in Africa, the Church’s hardline (and it is a hardline) stance on homosexuality, contraception etc and the recent abuse scandals in Ireland are all damaging te Church’s credibility to the point where many Westerners are going to associate Catholicism with authoritiarianism, paedophilia, homophobia and a Dark Age attitude toward sex.

Yes, you certainly are right. I’ve seen a fair amount of comments which do just what you say.

 

[tuviskazinai]

Okay, you admit that you don’t know a great deal about this (neither do I), but I still find this argument unconvinving. Am I to take it that all non-saints go to Hell>? Why didn’t God create a Heaven full of saints whose wills were aligned with His, as opposed to creating a material world complete with sinners? Surely, had He done that, there would be no need for Hell and everything that existed would exist within the perfection of Heaven? I thin that God’s omniscience is rather a problem here.

I’m not sure I’d word it, “all non-saints go to Hell,” since putting it that way obfuscates the fact that the very definition of a saint is already “anyone who goes to Heaven” (and not just those whom the Church canonizes).

More to the point: I don’t think the problem is with God’s omniscience if we adhere to the classic Christian theodicy which explains sin and evil as necessary consequences of our free will (the sort of “transworld depravity” which must occur in all possible worlds in which free will is a reality). You addressed this argument earlier on, but unless I missed your point, I think you kind of dodged the theodicy when you then asked whether free will exists in Heaven.

And as for that, I am not sure that it has to.

For a truly brilliant and beautiful discussion of the contemporary Christian stance towards the justice of Divine Judgment and towards what we may hope for in the afterlife, I strongly recommend sections 41-48 of Pope Benedict’s brilliant encyclical Spe Salvi: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20071130_spe-salvi_en.html The Pope, in a very human way, admits the doubts we might have towards the details of some of these Christian doctrines, and so discusses them from the perspective of Hope (plain and simple), developing his thesis that “we see as a distinguishing mark of Christians the fact that they have a future: it is not that they know the details of what awaits them, but they know in general terms that their life will not end in emptiness.”

CONT’D →

 

[tuviskazinai]

<— CONT’D

Yes, they are. The Church basically argues that the “primary precept” of morality is self-preservation, and from this can be derived various secondary precepts e.g. no abortions, no homosexuality and no contraception. However, this seems to me to be a fallacious argument. Firstly, homosexuality is natural, and for “natural” law to conflict with nature seems a tad bizarre to me. Secondly, surely sex can serve other purposes besides procreation? It’s important to any adult relationship, and humans have evolved to the point where sex is not simply a matter of procreation, but rather a matter of pleasure. I would argue that contraception doesn’t conflictwith natural law.

Can you provide some citations in which the Church argues that the primary precept of morality is self-preservation? I do not believe that the Church’s opposition to abortion, for instance, derives simply from some sort of biological urge to perpetuate the species.

Homosexuality may be “naturally occurring,” but so are all sins and all vices. The “natural law” that underlies Catholic theology does not take as its starting point a simple description of all that happens; nor is it equivalent to a synopsis of the “laws of nature.” Rather, it is a description of the moral law which is written, naturally, on the hearts of men and women (and is, therefore, immutable):

The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1954)

Since the notion of homosexuality as a sexual identity is really remarkably new, I am sure that the Church’s theological and pastoral responses to it will continue to develop. For now I would just suggest that the effect homosexual relationships have and will continue to have on the structure of the monogamous, marriage-based family and the relationship of parents to children is a serious one which demands philosophical evaluation…even if we admit that the happiness of homosexual individuals is (or at least, should be) a major concern of ours, as well.

As for the various significations of conjugal sex and the morality of contraception, well, these could be whole discussions in and of themselves! If you start a thread, I will go there.

The Church should not be involved in people’s private lives. What homosexuals do in the privacy of their own homes is no concern of anyone’s. I have Catholic family (I was in fact raised a Catholic) who have no problem with homosexuality at all. The Church is out-of-touch with many of its followers, who agree that no institution should be allowed to dictate what people can and can’t do in their private lives.

But the Church is not a democracy. I mean, I personally would agree that the Church is often out of touch with reality – my main problem here tends to be with its pastoral approach rather than its moral message. I just think we need to be careful in taking a majority vote (especially one culled from a largely uncatechized public) as our moral compass.

However, I am confident that the Church would be far, far better respected if it didn’t obsess over “issues” such as homosexuality and contraception so much. Pope Benedict XVI’s recent comments in Africa, the Church’s hardline (and it is a hardline) stance on homosexuality, contraception etc and the recent abuse scandals in Ireland are all damaging te Church’s credibility to the point where many Westerners are going to associate Catholicism with authoritiarianism, paedophilia, homophobia and a Dark Age attitude toward sex.

The Church’s PR problem has been one of my main concerns for a long time, too. But we should distinguish between people’s misinterpretations of Church teaching, and flaws in that teaching. To take just one example that you raise, the Church simply doesn’t “obsess” over issues like contraception. It’s interesting that you use that word “obsess.” In fact, the vast majority of the Pope’s controversial comments in Africa that you invoke had absolutely nothing to do with condoms. The single reference he made to them were in this conditional statement: “If the soul is lacking, if Africans do not help one another, then the scourge cannot be resolved by distributing condoms; quite the contrary, this would risk aggravating the problem.” It is the media, not the Pope, that “obsessively” pulled this single sentence out of a four-paragraph discussion and made it sound as though the Pope were being far more reactionary and far more naive than I think this brilliant man is constitutionally capable of being.

Much more could be said, of course, on any of these points, from either side of the debate…but for now…thoughts?

Peace,
+AMDG+