Back in the 1950s, Father Leonard Feeney made headlines by proclaiming loud and long that no one could go to heaven except members of the Roman Catholic Church. For that he was excommunicated from membership in the Roman Catholic Church.
Years later Feeney and his followers were officially reconciled with the Church, but their take on Catholic life (ostensibly “hardline” but actually just weird) has not changed substantially.
And now the Feeneyites (officially, the “Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary” out of the Saint Benedict Center in Harvard, Mass.) are back in the headlines. The principal of their school, Brother Thomas Dalton, withdrew his student band from marching in Boston’s Saint Patrick’s Day parade on the mere prospect that the kids would be marching down the same street as Mass Equality, a gay pride group.
 |
| Brother Thomas Dalton |
Defending his position in a letter to the Boston Globe, Brother Thomas explained his opposition to associating with the gay marchers:
Jesus Christ once compared the Kingdom of Heaven to a wedding feast. When the king saw a guest not properly attired, he said to his servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (Matthew 22:13). All that over improper dress; what would he have done to a group parading unnatural lust?
To many readers, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, this talk of “unnatural lust” probably sounds like typical Catholic teaching: backward and mean-spirited and exclusionary. In fact, Brother Thomas’ sentiments are backward, mean-spirited, and exclusionary--but they are not Catholic teaching.
Brother Thomas is, of course, entitled to his own opinion (as well as to his dubious misinterpretation of a Biblical parable), and he even has the authority to impose his opinion on his students. In fact, when the gay marchers were finally rejected, Brother Dalton reinstated his children in the parade and led them in applauding their “victory.” All under the guise of providing a “Catholic education.”
But Brother Thomas is not entitled to his own facts--and he is not entitled to speak for the Church, let alone speak falsely. In a time when Pope Francis is finally at long last reversing the appallingly bad (and mostly deserved) PR the Catholic Church has received over the last 20 years, the last thing we need is some loud voice distorting our Catholic identity in public view.
But I fear that many Catholics secretly (or even openly) share this man’s views, or at least believe that these are the Church’s views. So a little plain talk about the Church’s teachings on homosexuals is timely. Here they are, drawn from the Catechism of the Catholic Church and from statements by the Vatican and the US Bishops:
1. Homosexual orientation is most often experienced as given and discovered, not chosen--and is not in itself morally wrong or sinful.
2. Given the inherent dignity of every human person, the Church teaches that “homosexual persons, like everyone else, should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights.”
3. Violence in speech or action against homosexuals “deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.”
4. “Every sign of discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”
5. Nothing in the Bible or Catholic teaching can be used to justify prejudicial or discriminatory attitudes and behaviors toward homosexual persons.
Note than none of this stopped Brother Thomas Dalton from using the Bible to imply that Catholic teaching DOES justify his discriminatory attitude.
Of course, Catholic moral teaching also finds no justification for homosexual acts. But the moral objections are essentially the same as the Church’s objections to masturbation, artificial contraception, pre-marital sex, adultery, coitus interruptus, oral and anal sex, etc.—namely, that only marital procreative sex is morally legitimate. Everything else—not just gay sex—violates natural law.
In other words, official Catholic morality opposes all those acts but not the people who perform them. Such opposition therefore provides no grounds for treating those people differently from anyone else--and that goes for homosexuals as well as for all the others!
Thus gays and lesbians have the same basic rights as all other human beings, and must be protected from discrimination like anyone else. This principle holds even if we accept official church teaching on homosexuality as a “disordered” orientation.
In short, the Church sees active homosexuals as sinners. But to be consistent, to avoid discrimination, one must treat them as we do any others whose behavior is called immoral.
Thus a true “hardline” would insist that the Saint Patrick’s Day parade exclude anyone who engages in masturbation, premarital sex, oral or anal sex, adultery, contraception, theft, lying, slander, cheating, etc—as well as any Catholics who deliberately ate meat the previous Friday (the second Friday in Lent).
This would result, of course, in a very short parade, made up mostly of marching Protestants. Throw in the exclusion of those engaging in drunkenness and natural lust, and there would be precious few onlookers left to cheer the children marching (practically alone!) for Brother Thomas Dalton’s school.
So singling out gays is wrong, not because we are not entitled to disapprove of their behavior, but because we are not entitled to judge them while ignoring everyone else.
When Pope Francis famously said “Who am I to judge?” with reference to gays, he was thinking of two things. First, Catholic tradition dictates that only one person can judge whether someone has sinned--namely, the sinner himself! That’s why Catholics confess their sins, rather than being denounced for them. Sin requires that one violate one’s conscience--and no one knows my conscience but me.
Second, the pope had already described himself as “a sinner.” His point, of course, is that Catholics believe that sin is a universal phenomenon within the human family. We all sin. To judge that homosexual activity is sinful merely lumps gays in with the rest of us. Far from justifying their exclusion, it confirms their inclusion in the company of sinners.
In this sense, the Saint Patrick’s Day parade is a parade of sinners, cheered on by thousands more sinners. And it always has been. Who are we to judge that gays have no place among us?
Certainly, any such judgment cannot claim to represent true Catholicism. And any event in honor of a Catholic saint is hardly enhanced by the proclamations of those who distort Catholicism and confuse the public. If we believe Saint Patrick was Catholic—and he was—then our celebration should reflect Catholic tradition, not distort it.
God willing, Brother Thomas Dalton’s band will someday learn about true Catholicism—but not, I fear, at his school.
Too cute by half, old chap... just as you acknowledge that the Church condemns the act but not the person, you must admit that the 'Feeneyites' objection - shared by plenty of others indeed - is not against the inclusion of homosexually-inclined persons in the parade per se, but against the inclusion of a *group* whose raison d'etre is to advocate for the acceptance of homosexual acts and a homosexual 'lifestyle' as good and normal. It's clever to say things against the 'Feeneyites', but your words cut both ways; neither is Dr. Swain entitled to his own facts! And the facts, dear fellow, do not favor your 'spin' on the whole matter - neither on the Church's teaching, nor on the motivation of the 'Feeneyites'. In fact, notwithstanding your out-of-context quote from YourFavoritePope, I'd doubt that his 'position' is any different from that of the 'Feeneyites'... And what do you *really * think St. Patrick himself would do? Come on old bean, your readers deserve better! So perhaps you will be a bit more open-minded and post this comment from an old chum....
ReplyDeletep.s. - perhaps you ought to write the 'Feeneyite' principal a letter and ask him to go on the record as to whether he'd really have been amenable to march in a parade featuring such orgs as Planned Parenthood, ashleymadison.com, "The Southie Self-abusers"*, "The Chelsea Cheaters"*, etc... Even better, since you ask God for the favor that "Brother Thomas Dalton’s band will someday learn about true Catholicism" I say: why wait for "Someday" to set him straight? If not now, when? If not you, whom? When you write that letter, why not offer to debate him publicly, at his own school, on the merits of his "views" and yours? Even I might be enticed to attend!
ReplyDelete*fictional organizations!
The entire argument here seems to be that we can associate with sinners as long as they keep their sin secret, and do not defend or advocate it. How Victorian. My puzzle: why is such behavior WORSE than sin itself? And what is its name in Catholic tradition, if not simply "sin"? Jesus knew the woman caught in adultery was sinning, and so did everyone else--it seems she made it no secret. Yet did he side with the stoners, who WERE concealing their own sins? No, he presumed theirs, since sin is universal, and challenged them to act out their double standard. Many people sin publicly, and defend their acts. The open defiant and illegal public drinking and drunkenness in Southie might be reason enough to boycott the parade. Only the cold weather prevents the display of those people sinning against modesty! I am doubtful of anyone who truly believes that gays are NOT being singled out.
ReplyDeleteAlas dear fellow, I cannot but wonder whether you’re serious or just trying to be provocative... from your depiction one might think this was a demonstration sponsored by the Westboro Baptist Church rather than a float honoring St. Patrick, who remains the patron saint (how quaint) of the Archdiocese of Boston. But the issue here isn't secrecy, it's advocacy! Surely we agree that it's none of our business (nor that of the 'Feeneyites') where a man puts his willy; most normal people don't want to know and could care less. That's hardly at issue here, what the ‘Feeneyites’ found themselves faced with was a group – perhaps Pope Francis might call it a “lobby” - who defines themselves by their attachment to a particular sin and seeks not only to justify themselves but to besmirch as “bigots” anyone who dares refuse sanction to their behaviour. That is an undeniable fact. In the face of such an attitude, silent acquiescence would undoubtedly be seen by many as either acceptance or pusillanimity. Does the principal of a Catholic school not carry any responsibility for the minds and souls of his pupils - to say nothing of his own? Do you really think that if mutatis mutandis the group had been promoting acceptance of bank robbery, public drunkenness, or any of a hundred other sinful behaviours the ‘Feeneyites’ would have marched down Broadway with them bras dessous?
ReplyDeleteYou attempt to equate homosexual activity with other sins, perhaps it would be apt to review the Church’s teaching on the “Sins that Cry Out to Heaven for Vengeance”. In the same context you saw fit to mention the sins of slander and lying, it would be interesting to know whether either of those apply when one selectively quotes the Catechism to justify dissent from Catholic teaching? Or when one takes the Pope’s words out of context in order to cast him as an ally in one’s dissent? Or when one accuses Catholics - religious no less - who seek only to live lives faithful to the teachings of the Church and in service to Our Lord and His Blessed Mother, of "distorting our Catholic identity" and implies that they are ignorant of “true Catholicism”? What happened to “who am I to judge”? These are not trivial matters old bean!
Brother Thomas Dalton was not complaining about advocacy, but about "unnatural lust." My references were about the Catholic Church's teachings against discrimination.I argued that in this case discrimination is (1) happening and (2) not justified. This is NOT dissent. This is simply a case-specific application of an establish principle of church teaching. By speaking of "unjustified" discrimination, the Church itself invites such an argument, since any discrimination against gays must be justified as NOT violating church teaching. Whether (1) is happening is a question of fact; whether (2) is happening is a matter of moral judgment. Disagreeing with my judgment is perfectly fine. Calling it dissent is wrong.
ReplyDeleteThis is tantamount to the sort of wooly thinking that eventually got your old pal Bernie Law into such hot water. As the father of children wouldn’t you have ‘discriminated’ against a militant homosexual when choosing a babysitter of the same sex as one of your children? Sure, nobody has the right to judge what’s in a man’s heart, but when that man publicly defines HIMSELF by his attachment to a behaviour that even you, dear Bernie, admit is a sin… what then? And what about an association that he forms, or joins, to promote societal acceptance of that sin; and which denigrates those who refuse to go along? At what point in Dr. Swain’s world is a Catholic finally entitled to say “march on, chaps; this is as far as I go”? Where does ‘unjust’ discrimination end? “Love the sinner, hate the sin” isn’t an abstract concept, and it simply cannot be construed to require uncritical approbation of a man’s efforts to lead others into sin! This advocacy simply cannot be separated from the person who participates in it, and it is indubitably a volitional act. Are you unable to understand that or simply loath to admit it?
ReplyDeleteYou seem disinclined to credit the ‘Feeneyites’ with an ounce of Christian charity, but wouldn’t an openminded man admit at least the possibility that they’ve read the plain words of the Catechism the same way I, and millions of other Catholics, have? Is it possible that they – and we – see clearly in the Scriptures Our Lord’s tolerance for human frailty contrasted vividly with his intolerance (discrimination?) of those who called evil good and good evil; who led others into sin, and who pridefully refused to repent? Did He not tell His Apostles to shake the dust from their feet - or was that simply about ‘hospitality’ as the revisionist theoreticians, er, theologians have posited re: Sodom and Gomorrah? Unfortunately your caricature of the ‘Feeneyites’ (and other orthodox Catholics) doesn’t hold up – you may find yourself in disagreement with their founder’s interpretation of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” and other aspects of their community’s life, but they appear to be in communion with their bishop and the Pope; and to be acting in this instance in accord with their consciences which appear to comport with the Catechism, the Scriptures, and Sacred Tradition. Perhaps the Spiritual Works of Mercy are not in vogue amongst ‘modern’ Catholics but the ‘Feeneyites’ don’t seem to have forgotten them. I don’t know what else to say old bean, perhaps those are simply ‘inconvenient truths’?
There is nothing wooly about my position. "Advocacy" by gays to accept them is not tantamount to enticing others to sin. It is, rather, an exercise of free speech-a basic human right. And the Church teaches: “Homosexual persons, like everyone else, should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights.” To say they cannot advocate because they are sinners sounds to me like dissent from this teaching. When the Church says, "Every sign of discrimination in their regard should be avoided," I wonder what you do not understand about "every sign." It seems clear enough: we are to treat homosexuals like everyone else. And no, i did not discriminate against openly gay people in choosing babysitters. I discriminated against unreliable people--but i also knew that all the reliable people I did choose were also sinners. I never expected to find perfect people in any area of my life. In our tradition, that desire to associate only with the perfect was Catharism--a heresy.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJust in passing: If I could not accept a "militant" homosexual (whatever that means) as babysitter of a same-sex child, then neither could we have accepted a "militant" heterosexual (whatever THAT means) to babysit an opposite-sex child. That would have been quite a dilemma----since we had children of both genders to care for at once! That even excluded both my parents. I guess we'd have pretty much been limited to my mother-in-law, who was heterosexual but always said "Who am I to judge?" about gays, and thus escaped the "militant" anathema. In short, we'd have spent many weekend evenings at home, baby-sitter-less. Luckily, as I said, we judged our babysitters by character rather than "militancy."
ReplyDelete