Thursday, March 25, 2004
Homosexuality
I choose the subject of homosexuality as the first subject of my
treatise on Catholic sexual teaching for two reasons. The first
of which is its timeliness in current events. The “gay marriage”
ceremonies performed by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome
and New Paltz, New York mayor Jason West ratcheted the homosexual
controversy up one more notch. How society deals with this issue
will have profound ramifications on the future of American and
Western culture as a whole. The second reason is that this
issue touches directly touches the question of the ontological
primacy of human sexuality as well as the act, whereas the
others deal only with the nature of the sexual act itself.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 2357 states:
“...Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which
presents homosexual acts as acts ofgrave depravity,
tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are
intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural
law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do
not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual
complementarity...”
Despite the attempts of pseudo-scholars to
anachronistically exegete scripture through
the paradigm of the American Psychological
Association’s politically motivated decision to
drop homosexuality from its list of psychic
disorders in 1973 (a decision that had no
more basis in science than it did in theology
and flew in the face of over 150 years of
psycho-analysis), the scriptural
characterization of homosexual acts as
“grave depravity” is irrefutable. The account
of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
in Genesis 19 was more than just a lack of
hospitality, as certain "scholars" claim. The
use of the Hebrew word “yada” in Gen 19:5, which is
translated in English to read “know” has two meanings. It can
mean to become acquainted with or it can mean to have sexual
relations with. For instance, in Genesis 4:1, it says: “Now Adam
knew Eve his wife and she conceived and she bore Cain...”
Another example is Mary’s question to the Angel Gabriel in Luke
1:34, “How shall this be done, because I know not man.” (Douay-Rhiems)
Obviously, Mary isn’t asking this question because she had never
been acquainted with a man. So, the word “know” has a sexual
connotation here. In other words, she is saying, “How can this be,
since I am a virgin and intend to remain as such?”
Even in English, the word “know” can have a sexual
component. (Did you have carnal knowledge of the lady?
meaning, Did you have sex with the lady?)
As silly as the "lack of hospitality" claim sounds, this view is
pervasive in many quarters of higher education and even in
some seminaries. I guess you can say they were right in one
sense. I would call attempts at gang rape and unsolicited
homosexual come-ons as a lack of hospitality.
When the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is referred to within
Scripture itself, its homosexual component is emphasized.
For example Jude 7:
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the
surrounding cities, which likewise acted
immorally and indulged in unnatural lust,
serve as an example by undergoing a
punishment of eternal fire.
Notice Jude doesn't say anything about a bad trackrecord on
hospitality.
With 1 Cor. 6:9-10, the common objection of this passage
being a proof text against homosexuality is that Paul is only
condemning pederasty,(sex between men and boys) or
heterosexuals who just "dabble" in homosexual behavior. Of
course, Paul is condemning pederasty, which is what is meant
by the Greek word Malakoi, which, in this passage, is
understood by scholars to mean effeminate or boy prostitute.
Even though the word Malakoi literally means soft, it
is used in a metaphorical sense here. The word soft can be
used in modern English as another way of calling someone a
sissy or weak, which have also been used derisively to describe
homosexuals.
The other Greek word used is arsenokoitai, which is either
translated as homosexual or by the more literal “liers with
mankind” meaning the same thing as homosexuals.
Romans 1:16-27 sheds further light on this. When one
studies the body of Paul’s writings, especially as they
concern morality and sin, especially sexual sin, will clearly
understand that Paul views it through the lense of the
natural law.(cf. Romans 1:18-23). He uses this to set
the stage for his teaching in Rom. 1:27. Drawing logical
conclusions from this, the unwanted inclination to sin
could also be viewed through the paradigm of the Fall of
Adam and Eve, i.e. Original Sin (cf. Romans 7:15-20).
So, even if theologian who has more degrees than a
thermometer says that Paul is only condemning pedastry and
heterosexuals who dabble in homosexual behavior and
not ALL homosexual behavior, it is more than safe to say
that he is wrong.
Many pro-homosexual advocates try to explain away
the anti-procreative aspect of homosexuality by
comparing homosexual couples to heterosexual
couples who are infertile. But this comparison does
not hold because homosexuality, by its very nature, cannot
bring forth newlife, whereas infertility is a defect foreign to
heterosexual sex, unless, of course we are talking about
couples who are beyond child-bearing years by virtue of age.
The male-female sexual complimentarity is written on
every element of human nature, body and soul. Every
man is completely and exclusively male and every
woman is completely and exclusively female. Therefore,
homosexuality is a contradiction of human nature itself,
most noticeably in regards to the body. Human
anatomy does not facilitate homosexual behavior. {1}
“Its [homosexuality] psychological genesis remains
largely unexplained.” (CCC 2357)
Although there is more that needs to be learned
regarding the psychological genesis of the homosexual
condition more is known about it than the Catechism
seems to suggest here. From a clinical perspective,
psychologists who specialize in treating the homosexual
condition say that it is a sexual or gender identity
disorder. The disordered sense of gender identity can
come about by way of a number of different scenarios.
According to these same experts, the most
common cause (and the source of the most deep seated
homosexual tendencies) is where the need of the child for
acceptance from those of the same sex, which is an important
part of developing a healthy gender identity, becomes frustrated.
There seem to be two basic schools of thought
as to how this develops. Psychologists like Dr. Joseph
Nicolosi places emphasis on the relationship with the same
sex parent. He says,
“If the father is distant or detached or critical or
emotionally unavailable, it causes the boy to feel
a hurt or rejection, and the boy surrenders his
masculine striving: He knows he’s a male, he just
never feels a part of the world of men. Homosexual
behavior is not about sex. It’s about what we call
the three A’s attention, affection, and approval.
A boy has a natural desire to be accepted by men.
If he does not feel this affection by the time he
reaches early adolescence, this emotional need
for approval becomes eroticized, and he begins
to experience sexual attraction.” (Changing Sexual
Orientation This Rock Jan 2001)
Other psychologists, like Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg of
the Netherlands, state that while the parent-child dynamic
described above is extremely important, it is not the
most important factor; the inability of the child to interact
with the same sex peer group is.
The parallels between the casuistry of male and female
homosexuality are striking, albeit imperfect. In addition
to the above description of the causes of male
homosexuality, there are two other factors in female
homosexuality. One is a disruption in the symbiotic
relationship between mother and daughter during infancy.
On this point, it is important to note that the boy, in
establishing a sense of sexual identity, has the added
burden of disidentifying with the mother and identifying
with the father. Girls, being the same sex as the mother,
her own sense of sexual identity is dependent upon
identifying with the mother. In this light, it would stand to
reason that the symbiotic relationship between mother
and infant daughter is important to sexual identity. The
other factor is sexual abuse by an older male. Even
though the correlation of sexual abuse and homosexuality
is also high in men as it is in women, but it seems to be
more of a factor in female homosexuality.
Homosexual tendencies can also be caused by difficulties
in adulthood. Psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons states:
“ Some adults who are very frustrated and lonely because
they have not yet met the right person to marry retreat
into homosexual behavior in an attempt to seek relief
from their loneliness. Also, the sadness that occurs after
the ending of a marriage or a serious heterosexual
relationship may result in homosexual behavior because
these individuals are fearful of becoming vulnerable to
someone of the opposite sex. “ (The Truth About
Homosexuality Father John F. Harvey O.S.F.S. Ignatius
Press 1996 pgs. 310 & 311)
He goes on to state that, “ In my clinical work I have seen
this pattern occur more frequently in women.” (ibid.)
The good doctor also points out that men who become
over whelmed with their duties of husband, father, and
provider can be vulnerable to homosexual tendencies:
“ Married men sometimes struggle with intense insecurity
after experiencing the stress of a negative boss, a lack of
success in work, or a sense of overwhelming anxiety from
financial worries. Then they begin to view their wives and
children as burdens and difficulties rather than gifts from
God. They engage in homosexual behavior in an attempt
to flee from their stress and to feel more lovable and
special.”
(The Truth About Homosexuality pg. 320)
Along these lines I think that a few words about the
promiscuous nature of homosexuality, particularly male
homosexuality is in order, since it is seen in scenarios we
just talked about as an escape from responsibility.
In most male homosexual relationships, sexual exclusivity
is not seen as a necessary element of a “committed”
relationship. According to Dr. William Foege, director of
the CDC, the AIDS victim has had sixty sex
partners in the last twelve months. Despite the spin
-doctoring by the homosexual lobby and their cohorts
in the media and others within the left wing apparatus,
white male homosexuals are still in the highest risk
category for AIDS. Back in 1994, the National Institute
of Health said that at the current rates of infection, a
majority of twenty year old gay or bisexual man will have
the AIDS virus nationwide.
Now what about the so-called "gay-gene" theory?
In July of 1993, the research journal Science published a
study by researcher Dean Hamer, himself a practicing
homosexual, claiming that there might be a gene for
homosexuality. This study claimed to show that there
was high correlation between the q28 marker on the X
chromosome and same-sex attractions. For starters, it
must be noted that correlation does not equal causation.
Secondly, if this correlation was indicative of genetic
casuistry, it would not only be high, but total. This fact
alone tells us that the environmental factor must also be
plugged into the equation, something Dr. Hamer himself
admits:
"We knew also that genes were only part of the answer.
We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual
orientation, as it does in most if not all behaviors. ..."
(Page 82 Science of Desire. Simon and Schuster 1994)
Furthermore, a Canadian study, using a much larger
sample base, showed no significant correlation between
the q28 marker on the X chromosome and homosexuality.
Another is a study involving identical twins. Why identical
twins? Because identical twins have the exact genetic
makeup and if one of the twins has same-sex attractions
and the other one did as well, this could be an indication
of genetic causes of homosexuality. There were two such
studies that were conducted. There was the Australian
and Minnesota “registry” study. These studies claimed
that in up to 50% of the cases where one identical twin
was homosexual, the other one was as well.
Even if we were to grant, for the sake of argument, that
these studies are accurate and free of bias, they still
suffer from the same weakness of the Hamer study, in
that if these studies were evidence of genetic causation,
the correlation would have to 100% before such idea
could even be considered.
But the sheer volume of the reporting of these studies,
without adequate explanation, misleadingly painted the
impression in the mind of an uncritical public, with the help
of the print and television media, that homosexuality was
innate and unchangeable normal variant of human nature.
A correct interpretation of even the above studies shows
that the evidence that psychological, social, and
environmental factors, which are complex and manifest
themselves in many different scenarios, are predominate,
is overwhelming. The positive results of therapy based
on such a theory, such as improved sense of gender
identity and in many cases, actual change in orientation,
are concrete indications of this fact.
Even if, for the sake of argument, that we were able to
grant (which evidence suggests we cannot) that there was
in fact a “gay gene” homosexuality still could not be
considered a natural variant to human nature because, as
we discussed earlier, homosexuality is contrary to the
male-female sexual complimentarity written into human
nature. Hence, it would just be a genetically induced
abnormality.
“ Under no circumstances can they
[homosexual acts] be approved.” (CCC #2357)
This is an important statement. First of all, love and
acceptance of the individual is often confused with
approval of their lifestyle. This applies to homosexual
persons as much as it does anyone else in the Church’s
eyes. As human beings they are created in the image and
likeness of God and must be treated as such. However,
because sexual identity is an integral part of human
nature, treating them as such demands that we not
ascribe normalcy to the homosexual condition nor
condone homosexual acts. The devastating effects of such
approval stemming from a misguided compassion are
legion. Since the homosexual condition is a manifestation
of a serious wound to one’s sexual and gender identity, it
[approval] only serves to compound that wound.
Whenever someone is emotionally and psychologically
wounded by means of deprivation, it is not uncommon
that they are resentful at and tend to devalue that very
need they are deprived of and the institutions that
safeguard the fulfillment of that need. It is precisely this
very resentment that gives impetus to homosexual
advocacy groups who set out to underminethe institution
of marriage by trying to redefine it. In addition to the fact
that civil authorities are morally bound to not give positive
legal sanction to a lifestyle to which no one has any
conceivable right, granting any legitimacy to the
homosexual lifestyle, be it gay “marriage” or even civil
unions will only serve to give that anger and resentment
the force of law. The attendant dangers are manifold. The
religious rights of employers are violated when they are
forced, despite their moral objections to homosexuality, to
provide spousal benefits to homosexual couples. Despite
whatever good intentions on the part homosexual
“parents” the rights of children to have parents of both
sexes are violated when they are deliberately brought into
“families” where they will not have both a mother and a
father, as per the plan of both God and nature would
dictate. Thus, the rule of law that, by its very nature, is
intended to safeguard these higher laws, is sacrificed on
the altar of “gay pride.”
The legalizing of same sex marriages also pose a danger
to the homosexuals themselves. Such legal recognition of
homosexuality will give impetus to the extreme fringe to
commit violent acts against homosexuals {2}. The 1986
Vatican pastoral letter on homosexuality recognized this
fact:
“[W]hen homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or
when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to
which no one has any conceivable right, neither the
Church nor society at large should be surprised when
other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and
irrational and violent reactions increase. (Homosexulitatis
problema #10)”
“The number of men and women who have deep-seated
homosexual tendencies is not negligible. (CCC 2358)”
It is definitely not negligible that there are a number of
men and women that have deep-seated homosexual
tendencies, but it is nowhere near the ten percent claim
that is bandied about in gay activist literature and
parroted by the media. At best, it’s around two percent.
“This inclination, which is objectively disordered,
constitutes for most of them a trial. (ibid.)”
Here, it is important to point out the difference, in terms
of making moral judgments, between the inclination and
the act and/or lifestyle. Again, the 1986 Vatican pastoral
letter states:
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual
person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency
ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the
inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
(#3)"
In this light, it’s important to point out that despite a
misconception that homosexual advocates paint in the
minds of the public, and that is that not all people with
homosexual attractions embrace the lifestyle. These
people whom psychologist Joseph Nicolosi calls the
“non-gay” homosexual, have homosexual attractions,
but do not engage in homosexual behavior and reject
the homosexual lifestyle.
Given the complex circumstances that give rise to deep
seated homosexual tendencies and the
misunderstandings of these circumstances, it is very easy
to understand how this inclination “constitutes for most
of them a trial.” {3}
“They must be accepted with respect,
compassion, and sensitivity. (ibid.)”
Once the difficult circumstances giving rise to
the homosexual condition are understood,
how can we not have
compassion for these people? There are few
psychological wounds deeper than that of a defective
sense of gender or sexual identity.
But precisely how can we show compassion afflicted with
homosexuality?
One is to befriend them insofar as the opportunity
presents itself and Catholic convictions allow. Dr.
Nicolosi points out that having healthy friendships with
heterosexuals of the same sex greatly aids the
therapeutic process of those trying to rid themselves of
homosexual tendencies. I would also say that such
befriending would be helpful to those even in the lifestyle
because it may be influential in opening them up to take
a more honest look at their homosexuality. Since same
sex peer rejection often plays a powerful role in the
bringing about the homosexual wound, same sex
acceptance, that will enable them to take their rightful
place in the world of men and women respectively, can
play an equally powerful role in its healing.
“Homosexual persons are called to
chastity. (CCC 2359)”
The healing of the homosexual condition must begin with
the practice of chastity. Those with both clinical and
pastoral expertise in this area affirm this. There are ways
in which we can assist homosexual persons in the leading
of chaste lives. One of course is to pray and sacrifice on
their behalf. One such sacrifice is the example of our own
chaste lives. An offering of this kind is both spiritual and
tangible. This is something they can see as well as benefit
from in an imperceptible spiritual way. A chaste life
that is joyfully and honestly lived amidst our own
personal struggles in a world stoned out of
its mind on lust gives those suffering from
homosexuality the much needed hope that purity is not
only possible, but worth all the sufferings that
accompany it.
“By the virtue of self-mastery that teach
them inner freedom, at times by the support of
disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental
grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely
approachChristian perfection. (ibid.)”
One of the sufferings that come with trying to
cultivate chastity when there is a previous history
of unchastity is failure. Those who have made the
transition from a life of sexual promiscuity to chastity
know well that initial attempts at chastity are met with
less than perfect success. Even saints who have made
such a transition are no exceptions to this rule, as St.
Augustine makes clear in recounting his own struggle:
“I flung myself down, how, I know not, under a certain
fig-tree, giving free course to my tears, and the streams
of mine eyes gushed out, an acceptable sacrifice unto
Thee. And, not indeed in these words, yet to this effect,
spake I much unto Thee,—“But Thou, O Lord, how
long?” “How long, Lord? Wilt Thou be angry for ever?
Oh, remember not against us former iniquities;” for I felt
that I was enthralled by them. I sent up these sorrowful
cries,—“How long, how long? Tomorrow, and tomorrow?
Why not now? Why is there not this hour an end to my
uncleanness?” I was saying these things and weeping in
the most bitter contrition of my heart, when, lo, I heard
the voice as of a boy or girl, I know not which, coming
from a neighbouring house, chanting, and oft repeating,
“Take up and read; take up and read.” Immediately my
countenance was changed, and I began most earnestly
to consider whether it was usual for children in any kind
of game to sing such words; nor could I remember ever
to have heard the like. So, restraining the torrent of my
tears, I rose up, interpreting it no other way than as a
command to me from Heaven to open the book, and to
read the first chapter I should light upon. For I had
heard of Antony, that, accidentally coming in whilst the
gospel was being read, he received the admonition as if
what was read were addressed to him,“Go and sell that
thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have
treasure in heaven; and come and follow me.” And by
such oracle was he forthwith converted unto Thee. So
quickly I returned to the place where Alypius was sitting;
for there had I put down the volume of the apostles,
when I rose thence. I grasped, opened, and in silence
read that paragraph on which my eyes first fell,—“Not
in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and
wantonness, not in strife and envying; but put ye on
the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the
flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.” No further would I read,
nor did I need; for instantly, as the sentence ended,—by
a light, as it were, of security infused into my heart,—all
the gloom of doubt vanished away.(Confessions Book 8
Chap.12)
Augustine’s beautifully articulated testimony of receiving
the gift of chastity on the heels of several failed attempts
serves as great inspiration to those who, in addition to
the normal difficulties that a chaste life entails, have the
added burden of same sex attractions.
The challenge to strive for Christian perfection offers
homosexual persons the hope of changing their
sexual orientation. This is another fact “gay” activists
don’t want you to know. In its statement on the 1997
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops pastoral letter
“Always Our Children” the National Association of
Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)
points out:
“A survey of 285 psychoanalysts, with 1,275
homosexual clients/patients found that over one third
reported a successful change to heterosexuality and
over 85 percent report a vast improvement in their
condition. A self-report survey was recently conducted
of 850 individuals and 200 therapists and counselors--
specifically seeking out individuals who claim to have
made a degree of change in sexual attraction. Before
therapy, 68 percent of the respondents perceived
themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual
and an additional 22 percent said they were more
homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment, only 13
percent perceived themselves as exclusively or almost
entirely homosexual, while 33 percent described
themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely
heterosexual. Only 1 percent said they were engaging in
homosexual acts “very often.”
One of the architects of the 1973 removal of
homosexuality as a disorder from psychiatric diagnostic
manual, Dr. Robert Spitzer M.D., has done an about-face
on the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a
changeable condition in 2003 study conducted by him in
cooperation with NARTH and ex-gay Evangelical ministry
Exodus. "Like most psychiatrists," says Dr. Spitzer, "I
thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted--
but that no one could really change their sexual
orientation. I now believe that's untrue--some people
can and do change."
Although the prognosis for a change of orientation is
good, as indicated above, some, due to reasons of age,
lack of access to therapists who are trained in treating
the homosexual condition due to lack of financial
resources and geographical proximity, are unable
to make that change. In addition to this, those
homosexuals who reject the lifestyle and try to change
are treated with contempt by a large segment of the
active homosexual community. Fr. Harvey, founder of
the only Vatican-endorsed Catholic ministry to
homosexual persons Courage, says that he receives
massive amounts of hate mail at their main office in New
York from many quarters of the gay community.
Furthermore, they don’t find too much in the way of help
from many quarters of the Church. By way of a “gay and
lesbian” ministry that is either silent about the Church’s
teaching on the immorality of homosexual act, which
amounts to a tacit approval of the gay lifestyle or even
in many cases explicit approval of “settling down with a
steady lover.” Or, in some cases, they go to a good holy
orthodox priest who doesn’t understand the
homosexual condition and is unaware of what is available
and is at a loss to give them the help they need.
St. Paul tells us that when we hope for what we do not
see, “...we wait for it with patience.” (Rom. 8:25)
In hoping for what is not readily seen, homosexuals are
called to chastity in the face of these great challenges.
And there are those who accept this call and the witness
of their chaste lives is a testimony to the fact that in
God all things are possible.
Notes:
{1} Our sex, male and female respectively, is genetically
predetermined. The female chromosomal make-up is XX
and male is XY. Despite the skill of surgeons to make a
man look like a woman and vicea-versa, the genetic
make-up remains the same.
{2} The way that the gay lobby used murder victim
Matthew Shepard, who happened to be a practicing
homosexual, as a pawn for their own agenda to push
so-called hate crimes (like violent crimes aren’t “hate”
crimes in and of themselves) legislation which, in effect,
would treat homosexuals as a protected class of people.
This only served to inflame the extreme element against
homosexuals. Furthermore, the motive the Laramie,
Wyoming, (one of the most liberal cities in the country)
police department ascribed to the murder of Mr.
Shepard was NOT "homophobia," but ROBBERY.
Another little tidbit of information the media failed to
report (surprise, surprise!): one of the assailants was
the son of a lesbian.
{3} The first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic
Church used the phrase “they [homosexuals] do not
choose their condition.” It was edited out of the second
edition. If what is meant by this phrase that those with
deep-seated homosexual tendencies do not choose to
have them, then, given the fact that these tendencies
arise unconsciously during childhood, then it is an
accurate description. Perhaps the reason it was edited
out of the Latin edition of the Catechism is that “do not
choose their condition” has been misused by
homosexual advocates within the Church to buttress the
false idea since homosexual inclinations are not a matter
of choice, no moral judgments can be made about the lifestyle.
I choose the subject of homosexuality as the first subject of my
treatise on Catholic sexual teaching for two reasons. The first
of which is its timeliness in current events. The “gay marriage”
ceremonies performed by San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome
and New Paltz, New York mayor Jason West ratcheted the homosexual
controversy up one more notch. How society deals with this issue
will have profound ramifications on the future of American and
Western culture as a whole. The second reason is that this
issue touches directly touches the question of the ontological
primacy of human sexuality as well as the act, whereas the
others deal only with the nature of the sexual act itself.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) 2357 states:
“...Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which
presents homosexual acts as acts ofgrave depravity,
tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are
intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural
law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do
not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual
complementarity...”
Despite the attempts of pseudo-scholars to
anachronistically exegete scripture through
the paradigm of the American Psychological
Association’s politically motivated decision to
drop homosexuality from its list of psychic
disorders in 1973 (a decision that had no
more basis in science than it did in theology
and flew in the face of over 150 years of
psycho-analysis), the scriptural
characterization of homosexual acts as
“grave depravity” is irrefutable. The account
of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah
in Genesis 19 was more than just a lack of
hospitality, as certain "scholars" claim. The
use of the Hebrew word “yada” in Gen 19:5, which is
translated in English to read “know” has two meanings. It can
mean to become acquainted with or it can mean to have sexual
relations with. For instance, in Genesis 4:1, it says: “Now Adam
knew Eve his wife and she conceived and she bore Cain...”
Another example is Mary’s question to the Angel Gabriel in Luke
1:34, “How shall this be done, because I know not man.” (Douay-Rhiems)
Obviously, Mary isn’t asking this question because she had never
been acquainted with a man. So, the word “know” has a sexual
connotation here. In other words, she is saying, “How can this be,
since I am a virgin and intend to remain as such?”
Even in English, the word “know” can have a sexual
component. (Did you have carnal knowledge of the lady?
meaning, Did you have sex with the lady?)
As silly as the "lack of hospitality" claim sounds, this view is
pervasive in many quarters of higher education and even in
some seminaries. I guess you can say they were right in one
sense. I would call attempts at gang rape and unsolicited
homosexual come-ons as a lack of hospitality.
When the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is referred to within
Scripture itself, its homosexual component is emphasized.
For example Jude 7:
just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the
surrounding cities, which likewise acted
immorally and indulged in unnatural lust,
serve as an example by undergoing a
punishment of eternal fire.
Notice Jude doesn't say anything about a bad trackrecord on
hospitality.
With 1 Cor. 6:9-10, the common objection of this passage
being a proof text against homosexuality is that Paul is only
condemning pederasty,(sex between men and boys) or
heterosexuals who just "dabble" in homosexual behavior. Of
course, Paul is condemning pederasty, which is what is meant
by the Greek word Malakoi, which, in this passage, is
understood by scholars to mean effeminate or boy prostitute.
Even though the word Malakoi literally means soft, it
is used in a metaphorical sense here. The word soft can be
used in modern English as another way of calling someone a
sissy or weak, which have also been used derisively to describe
homosexuals.
The other Greek word used is arsenokoitai, which is either
translated as homosexual or by the more literal “liers with
mankind” meaning the same thing as homosexuals.
Romans 1:16-27 sheds further light on this. When one
studies the body of Paul’s writings, especially as they
concern morality and sin, especially sexual sin, will clearly
understand that Paul views it through the lense of the
natural law.(cf. Romans 1:18-23). He uses this to set
the stage for his teaching in Rom. 1:27. Drawing logical
conclusions from this, the unwanted inclination to sin
could also be viewed through the paradigm of the Fall of
Adam and Eve, i.e. Original Sin (cf. Romans 7:15-20).
So, even if theologian who has more degrees than a
thermometer says that Paul is only condemning pedastry and
heterosexuals who dabble in homosexual behavior and
not ALL homosexual behavior, it is more than safe to say
that he is wrong.
Many pro-homosexual advocates try to explain away
the anti-procreative aspect of homosexuality by
comparing homosexual couples to heterosexual
couples who are infertile. But this comparison does
not hold because homosexuality, by its very nature, cannot
bring forth newlife, whereas infertility is a defect foreign to
heterosexual sex, unless, of course we are talking about
couples who are beyond child-bearing years by virtue of age.
The male-female sexual complimentarity is written on
every element of human nature, body and soul. Every
man is completely and exclusively male and every
woman is completely and exclusively female. Therefore,
homosexuality is a contradiction of human nature itself,
most noticeably in regards to the body. Human
anatomy does not facilitate homosexual behavior. {1}
“Its [homosexuality] psychological genesis remains
largely unexplained.” (CCC 2357)
Although there is more that needs to be learned
regarding the psychological genesis of the homosexual
condition more is known about it than the Catechism
seems to suggest here. From a clinical perspective,
psychologists who specialize in treating the homosexual
condition say that it is a sexual or gender identity
disorder. The disordered sense of gender identity can
come about by way of a number of different scenarios.
According to these same experts, the most
common cause (and the source of the most deep seated
homosexual tendencies) is where the need of the child for
acceptance from those of the same sex, which is an important
part of developing a healthy gender identity, becomes frustrated.
There seem to be two basic schools of thought
as to how this develops. Psychologists like Dr. Joseph
Nicolosi places emphasis on the relationship with the same
sex parent. He says,
“If the father is distant or detached or critical or
emotionally unavailable, it causes the boy to feel
a hurt or rejection, and the boy surrenders his
masculine striving: He knows he’s a male, he just
never feels a part of the world of men. Homosexual
behavior is not about sex. It’s about what we call
the three A’s attention, affection, and approval.
A boy has a natural desire to be accepted by men.
If he does not feel this affection by the time he
reaches early adolescence, this emotional need
for approval becomes eroticized, and he begins
to experience sexual attraction.” (Changing Sexual
Orientation This Rock Jan 2001)
Other psychologists, like Dr. Gerard van den Aardweg of
the Netherlands, state that while the parent-child dynamic
described above is extremely important, it is not the
most important factor; the inability of the child to interact
with the same sex peer group is.
The parallels between the casuistry of male and female
homosexuality are striking, albeit imperfect. In addition
to the above description of the causes of male
homosexuality, there are two other factors in female
homosexuality. One is a disruption in the symbiotic
relationship between mother and daughter during infancy.
On this point, it is important to note that the boy, in
establishing a sense of sexual identity, has the added
burden of disidentifying with the mother and identifying
with the father. Girls, being the same sex as the mother,
her own sense of sexual identity is dependent upon
identifying with the mother. In this light, it would stand to
reason that the symbiotic relationship between mother
and infant daughter is important to sexual identity. The
other factor is sexual abuse by an older male. Even
though the correlation of sexual abuse and homosexuality
is also high in men as it is in women, but it seems to be
more of a factor in female homosexuality.
Homosexual tendencies can also be caused by difficulties
in adulthood. Psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons states:
“ Some adults who are very frustrated and lonely because
they have not yet met the right person to marry retreat
into homosexual behavior in an attempt to seek relief
from their loneliness. Also, the sadness that occurs after
the ending of a marriage or a serious heterosexual
relationship may result in homosexual behavior because
these individuals are fearful of becoming vulnerable to
someone of the opposite sex. “ (The Truth About
Homosexuality Father John F. Harvey O.S.F.S. Ignatius
Press 1996 pgs. 310 & 311)
He goes on to state that, “ In my clinical work I have seen
this pattern occur more frequently in women.” (ibid.)
The good doctor also points out that men who become
over whelmed with their duties of husband, father, and
provider can be vulnerable to homosexual tendencies:
“ Married men sometimes struggle with intense insecurity
after experiencing the stress of a negative boss, a lack of
success in work, or a sense of overwhelming anxiety from
financial worries. Then they begin to view their wives and
children as burdens and difficulties rather than gifts from
God. They engage in homosexual behavior in an attempt
to flee from their stress and to feel more lovable and
special.”
(The Truth About Homosexuality pg. 320)
Along these lines I think that a few words about the
promiscuous nature of homosexuality, particularly male
homosexuality is in order, since it is seen in scenarios we
just talked about as an escape from responsibility.
In most male homosexual relationships, sexual exclusivity
is not seen as a necessary element of a “committed”
relationship. According to Dr. William Foege, director of
the CDC, the AIDS victim has had sixty sex
partners in the last twelve months. Despite the spin
-doctoring by the homosexual lobby and their cohorts
in the media and others within the left wing apparatus,
white male homosexuals are still in the highest risk
category for AIDS. Back in 1994, the National Institute
of Health said that at the current rates of infection, a
majority of twenty year old gay or bisexual man will have
the AIDS virus nationwide.
Now what about the so-called "gay-gene" theory?
In July of 1993, the research journal Science published a
study by researcher Dean Hamer, himself a practicing
homosexual, claiming that there might be a gene for
homosexuality. This study claimed to show that there
was high correlation between the q28 marker on the X
chromosome and same-sex attractions. For starters, it
must be noted that correlation does not equal causation.
Secondly, if this correlation was indicative of genetic
casuistry, it would not only be high, but total. This fact
alone tells us that the environmental factor must also be
plugged into the equation, something Dr. Hamer himself
admits:
"We knew also that genes were only part of the answer.
We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual
orientation, as it does in most if not all behaviors. ..."
(Page 82 Science of Desire. Simon and Schuster 1994)
Furthermore, a Canadian study, using a much larger
sample base, showed no significant correlation between
the q28 marker on the X chromosome and homosexuality.
Another is a study involving identical twins. Why identical
twins? Because identical twins have the exact genetic
makeup and if one of the twins has same-sex attractions
and the other one did as well, this could be an indication
of genetic causes of homosexuality. There were two such
studies that were conducted. There was the Australian
and Minnesota “registry” study. These studies claimed
that in up to 50% of the cases where one identical twin
was homosexual, the other one was as well.
Even if we were to grant, for the sake of argument, that
these studies are accurate and free of bias, they still
suffer from the same weakness of the Hamer study, in
that if these studies were evidence of genetic causation,
the correlation would have to 100% before such idea
could even be considered.
But the sheer volume of the reporting of these studies,
without adequate explanation, misleadingly painted the
impression in the mind of an uncritical public, with the help
of the print and television media, that homosexuality was
innate and unchangeable normal variant of human nature.
A correct interpretation of even the above studies shows
that the evidence that psychological, social, and
environmental factors, which are complex and manifest
themselves in many different scenarios, are predominate,
is overwhelming. The positive results of therapy based
on such a theory, such as improved sense of gender
identity and in many cases, actual change in orientation,
are concrete indications of this fact.
Even if, for the sake of argument, that we were able to
grant (which evidence suggests we cannot) that there was
in fact a “gay gene” homosexuality still could not be
considered a natural variant to human nature because, as
we discussed earlier, homosexuality is contrary to the
male-female sexual complimentarity written into human
nature. Hence, it would just be a genetically induced
abnormality.
“ Under no circumstances can they
[homosexual acts] be approved.” (CCC #2357)
This is an important statement. First of all, love and
acceptance of the individual is often confused with
approval of their lifestyle. This applies to homosexual
persons as much as it does anyone else in the Church’s
eyes. As human beings they are created in the image and
likeness of God and must be treated as such. However,
because sexual identity is an integral part of human
nature, treating them as such demands that we not
ascribe normalcy to the homosexual condition nor
condone homosexual acts. The devastating effects of such
approval stemming from a misguided compassion are
legion. Since the homosexual condition is a manifestation
of a serious wound to one’s sexual and gender identity, it
[approval] only serves to compound that wound.
Whenever someone is emotionally and psychologically
wounded by means of deprivation, it is not uncommon
that they are resentful at and tend to devalue that very
need they are deprived of and the institutions that
safeguard the fulfillment of that need. It is precisely this
very resentment that gives impetus to homosexual
advocacy groups who set out to underminethe institution
of marriage by trying to redefine it. In addition to the fact
that civil authorities are morally bound to not give positive
legal sanction to a lifestyle to which no one has any
conceivable right, granting any legitimacy to the
homosexual lifestyle, be it gay “marriage” or even civil
unions will only serve to give that anger and resentment
the force of law. The attendant dangers are manifold. The
religious rights of employers are violated when they are
forced, despite their moral objections to homosexuality, to
provide spousal benefits to homosexual couples. Despite
whatever good intentions on the part homosexual
“parents” the rights of children to have parents of both
sexes are violated when they are deliberately brought into
“families” where they will not have both a mother and a
father, as per the plan of both God and nature would
dictate. Thus, the rule of law that, by its very nature, is
intended to safeguard these higher laws, is sacrificed on
the altar of “gay pride.”
The legalizing of same sex marriages also pose a danger
to the homosexuals themselves. Such legal recognition of
homosexuality will give impetus to the extreme fringe to
commit violent acts against homosexuals {2}. The 1986
Vatican pastoral letter on homosexuality recognized this
fact:
“[W]hen homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or
when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to
which no one has any conceivable right, neither the
Church nor society at large should be surprised when
other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and
irrational and violent reactions increase. (Homosexulitatis
problema #10)”
“The number of men and women who have deep-seated
homosexual tendencies is not negligible. (CCC 2358)”
It is definitely not negligible that there are a number of
men and women that have deep-seated homosexual
tendencies, but it is nowhere near the ten percent claim
that is bandied about in gay activist literature and
parroted by the media. At best, it’s around two percent.
“This inclination, which is objectively disordered,
constitutes for most of them a trial. (ibid.)”
Here, it is important to point out the difference, in terms
of making moral judgments, between the inclination and
the act and/or lifestyle. Again, the 1986 Vatican pastoral
letter states:
“Although the particular inclination of the homosexual
person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency
ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the
inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
(#3)"
In this light, it’s important to point out that despite a
misconception that homosexual advocates paint in the
minds of the public, and that is that not all people with
homosexual attractions embrace the lifestyle. These
people whom psychologist Joseph Nicolosi calls the
“non-gay” homosexual, have homosexual attractions,
but do not engage in homosexual behavior and reject
the homosexual lifestyle.
Given the complex circumstances that give rise to deep
seated homosexual tendencies and the
misunderstandings of these circumstances, it is very easy
to understand how this inclination “constitutes for most
of them a trial.” {3}
“They must be accepted with respect,
compassion, and sensitivity. (ibid.)”
Once the difficult circumstances giving rise to
the homosexual condition are understood,
how can we not have
compassion for these people? There are few
psychological wounds deeper than that of a defective
sense of gender or sexual identity.
But precisely how can we show compassion afflicted with
homosexuality?
One is to befriend them insofar as the opportunity
presents itself and Catholic convictions allow. Dr.
Nicolosi points out that having healthy friendships with
heterosexuals of the same sex greatly aids the
therapeutic process of those trying to rid themselves of
homosexual tendencies. I would also say that such
befriending would be helpful to those even in the lifestyle
because it may be influential in opening them up to take
a more honest look at their homosexuality. Since same
sex peer rejection often plays a powerful role in the
bringing about the homosexual wound, same sex
acceptance, that will enable them to take their rightful
place in the world of men and women respectively, can
play an equally powerful role in its healing.
“Homosexual persons are called to
chastity. (CCC 2359)”
The healing of the homosexual condition must begin with
the practice of chastity. Those with both clinical and
pastoral expertise in this area affirm this. There are ways
in which we can assist homosexual persons in the leading
of chaste lives. One of course is to pray and sacrifice on
their behalf. One such sacrifice is the example of our own
chaste lives. An offering of this kind is both spiritual and
tangible. This is something they can see as well as benefit
from in an imperceptible spiritual way. A chaste life
that is joyfully and honestly lived amidst our own
personal struggles in a world stoned out of
its mind on lust gives those suffering from
homosexuality the much needed hope that purity is not
only possible, but worth all the sufferings that
accompany it.
“By the virtue of self-mastery that teach
them inner freedom, at times by the support of
disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental
grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely
approachChristian perfection. (ibid.)”
One of the sufferings that come with trying to
cultivate chastity when there is a previous history
of unchastity is failure. Those who have made the
transition from a life of sexual promiscuity to chastity
know well that initial attempts at chastity are met with
less than perfect success. Even saints who have made
such a transition are no exceptions to this rule, as St.
Augustine makes clear in recounting his own struggle:
“I flung myself down, how, I know not, under a certain
fig-tree, giving free course to my tears, and the streams
of mine eyes gushed out, an acceptable sacrifice unto
Thee. And, not indeed in these words, yet to this effect,
spake I much unto Thee,—“But Thou, O Lord, how
long?” “How long, Lord? Wilt Thou be angry for ever?
Oh, remember not against us former iniquities;” for I felt
that I was enthralled by them. I sent up these sorrowful
cries,—“How long, how long? Tomorrow, and tomorrow?
Why not now? Why is there not this hour an end to my
uncleanness?” I was saying these things and weeping in
the most bitter contrition of my heart, when, lo, I heard
the voice as of a boy or girl, I know not which, coming
from a neighbouring house, chanting, and oft repeating,
“Take up and read; take up and read.” Immediately my
countenance was changed, and I began most earnestly
to consider whether it was usual for children in any kind
of game to sing such words; nor could I remember ever
to have heard the like. So, restraining the torrent of my
tears, I rose up, interpreting it no other way than as a
command to me from Heaven to open the book, and to
read the first chapter I should light upon. For I had
heard of Antony, that, accidentally coming in whilst the
gospel was being read, he received the admonition as if
what was read were addressed to him,“Go and sell that
thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have
treasure in heaven; and come and follow me.” And by
such oracle was he forthwith converted unto Thee. So
quickly I returned to the place where Alypius was sitting;
for there had I put down the volume of the apostles,
when I rose thence. I grasped, opened, and in silence
read that paragraph on which my eyes first fell,—“Not
in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and
wantonness, not in strife and envying; but put ye on
the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the
flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.” No further would I read,
nor did I need; for instantly, as the sentence ended,—by
a light, as it were, of security infused into my heart,—all
the gloom of doubt vanished away.(Confessions Book 8
Chap.12)
Augustine’s beautifully articulated testimony of receiving
the gift of chastity on the heels of several failed attempts
serves as great inspiration to those who, in addition to
the normal difficulties that a chaste life entails, have the
added burden of same sex attractions.
The challenge to strive for Christian perfection offers
homosexual persons the hope of changing their
sexual orientation. This is another fact “gay” activists
don’t want you to know. In its statement on the 1997
U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops pastoral letter
“Always Our Children” the National Association of
Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH)
points out:
“A survey of 285 psychoanalysts, with 1,275
homosexual clients/patients found that over one third
reported a successful change to heterosexuality and
over 85 percent report a vast improvement in their
condition. A self-report survey was recently conducted
of 850 individuals and 200 therapists and counselors--
specifically seeking out individuals who claim to have
made a degree of change in sexual attraction. Before
therapy, 68 percent of the respondents perceived
themselves as exclusively or almost entirely homosexual
and an additional 22 percent said they were more
homosexual than heterosexual. After treatment, only 13
percent perceived themselves as exclusively or almost
entirely homosexual, while 33 percent described
themselves as either exclusively or almost entirely
heterosexual. Only 1 percent said they were engaging in
homosexual acts “very often.”
One of the architects of the 1973 removal of
homosexuality as a disorder from psychiatric diagnostic
manual, Dr. Robert Spitzer M.D., has done an about-face
on the issue of whether or not homosexuality is a
changeable condition in 2003 study conducted by him in
cooperation with NARTH and ex-gay Evangelical ministry
Exodus. "Like most psychiatrists," says Dr. Spitzer, "I
thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted--
but that no one could really change their sexual
orientation. I now believe that's untrue--some people
can and do change."
Although the prognosis for a change of orientation is
good, as indicated above, some, due to reasons of age,
lack of access to therapists who are trained in treating
the homosexual condition due to lack of financial
resources and geographical proximity, are unable
to make that change. In addition to this, those
homosexuals who reject the lifestyle and try to change
are treated with contempt by a large segment of the
active homosexual community. Fr. Harvey, founder of
the only Vatican-endorsed Catholic ministry to
homosexual persons Courage, says that he receives
massive amounts of hate mail at their main office in New
York from many quarters of the gay community.
Furthermore, they don’t find too much in the way of help
from many quarters of the Church. By way of a “gay and
lesbian” ministry that is either silent about the Church’s
teaching on the immorality of homosexual act, which
amounts to a tacit approval of the gay lifestyle or even
in many cases explicit approval of “settling down with a
steady lover.” Or, in some cases, they go to a good holy
orthodox priest who doesn’t understand the
homosexual condition and is unaware of what is available
and is at a loss to give them the help they need.
St. Paul tells us that when we hope for what we do not
see, “...we wait for it with patience.” (Rom. 8:25)
In hoping for what is not readily seen, homosexuals are
called to chastity in the face of these great challenges.
And there are those who accept this call and the witness
of their chaste lives is a testimony to the fact that in
God all things are possible.
Notes:
{1} Our sex, male and female respectively, is genetically
predetermined. The female chromosomal make-up is XX
and male is XY. Despite the skill of surgeons to make a
man look like a woman and vicea-versa, the genetic
make-up remains the same.
{2} The way that the gay lobby used murder victim
Matthew Shepard, who happened to be a practicing
homosexual, as a pawn for their own agenda to push
so-called hate crimes (like violent crimes aren’t “hate”
crimes in and of themselves) legislation which, in effect,
would treat homosexuals as a protected class of people.
This only served to inflame the extreme element against
homosexuals. Furthermore, the motive the Laramie,
Wyoming, (one of the most liberal cities in the country)
police department ascribed to the murder of Mr.
Shepard was NOT "homophobia," but ROBBERY.
Another little tidbit of information the media failed to
report (surprise, surprise!): one of the assailants was
the son of a lesbian.
{3} The first edition of the Catechism of the Catholic
Church used the phrase “they [homosexuals] do not
choose their condition.” It was edited out of the second
edition. If what is meant by this phrase that those with
deep-seated homosexual tendencies do not choose to
have them, then, given the fact that these tendencies
arise unconsciously during childhood, then it is an
accurate description. Perhaps the reason it was edited
out of the Latin edition of the Catechism is that “do not
choose their condition” has been misused by
homosexual advocates within the Church to buttress the
false idea since homosexual inclinations are not a matter
of choice, no moral judgments can be made about the lifestyle.
Catholic Sexual Teaching
Of all the teachings of the Catholic Church, her
teaching regarding sexual morality is by far the
most controversial. According to the late great
Jesuit theologian Fr. John Hardon, “ As the
Church’s history shows, it is the Catholic
teaching on Christian chastity which has
been the main reason for so many
departures from Catholic unity over the
centuries. “ Fr. Hardon goes on to say that,
“ It [rejection of Catholic sexual teaching] is
at the root of the crisis in the Western world. “
Of course, this is no surprise given the
sensitive nature of the subject of
human sexuality and the obstacles
that a fallen human nature puts in our way
of being able to, in thought and actions,
properly assimilate it in all its truth and
beauty.
I think it is important that we try and
sidestep the entanglements that
objections to Catholic teaching
regarding human sexuality get caught
up in and see what she actually says on
the matter. The Catechism of the Catholic
Church #2331, citing the book of Genesis,
states:
"God created man in his own image
. . . male and female he created them ";
This statement points out the most
fundamental, but also the most overlooked,
truth about human sexuality, its ontological
(i.e.being) dimension. Any Catholic apologist
who is serious about defending the Church’s
teaching on sexual morality must understand
and never tire in emphasizing that human
sexuality is primarily a matter of being, not
of activity.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church expands
on this point in paragraph 2333:
Everyone, man and woman, should
acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.
Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and
complimentarity are oriented toward the
goods of marriage and the flourishing of
family life. The harmony of the couple and
of society depends in part on the way in
which the complementarity, needs, and
mutual support between the sexes are lived
out.
The complimentarity is not only essential to
relations between men and women in the
context of marriage, but on the platonic level
as well. The Catechism of the Catholic Church
#2332 states, “Sexuality affects all
aspects of the human person in the unity of
his body and soul. It especially concerns
affectivity, the capacity to love and to
procreate, and in a more general way
the aptitude for forming bonds of
communion with others. “
In the previous entry,
I stated that being Catholic “means to fully
accept the universal truth about God and
man and to give loyal submission to the authority
instituted to safeguard it..” Catholic sexual teaching
is a reflection of this very reality.
It is through this paradigm that we explore,
in a five part series, Catholic teaching regarding
homosexuality, contraception, adultery,
fornication, and masturbation.
Of all the teachings of the Catholic Church, her
teaching regarding sexual morality is by far the
most controversial. According to the late great
Jesuit theologian Fr. John Hardon, “ As the
Church’s history shows, it is the Catholic
teaching on Christian chastity which has
been the main reason for so many
departures from Catholic unity over the
centuries. “ Fr. Hardon goes on to say that,
“ It [rejection of Catholic sexual teaching] is
at the root of the crisis in the Western world. “
Of course, this is no surprise given the
sensitive nature of the subject of
human sexuality and the obstacles
that a fallen human nature puts in our way
of being able to, in thought and actions,
properly assimilate it in all its truth and
beauty.
I think it is important that we try and
sidestep the entanglements that
objections to Catholic teaching
regarding human sexuality get caught
up in and see what she actually says on
the matter. The Catechism of the Catholic
Church #2331, citing the book of Genesis,
states:
"God created man in his own image
. . . male and female he created them ";
This statement points out the most
fundamental, but also the most overlooked,
truth about human sexuality, its ontological
(i.e.being) dimension. Any Catholic apologist
who is serious about defending the Church’s
teaching on sexual morality must understand
and never tire in emphasizing that human
sexuality is primarily a matter of being, not
of activity.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church expands
on this point in paragraph 2333:
Everyone, man and woman, should
acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.
Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and
complimentarity are oriented toward the
goods of marriage and the flourishing of
family life. The harmony of the couple and
of society depends in part on the way in
which the complementarity, needs, and
mutual support between the sexes are lived
out.
The complimentarity is not only essential to
relations between men and women in the
context of marriage, but on the platonic level
as well. The Catechism of the Catholic Church
#2332 states, “Sexuality affects all
aspects of the human person in the unity of
his body and soul. It especially concerns
affectivity, the capacity to love and to
procreate, and in a more general way
the aptitude for forming bonds of
communion with others. “
In the previous entry,
I stated that being Catholic “means to fully
accept the universal truth about God and
man and to give loyal submission to the authority
instituted to safeguard it..” Catholic sexual teaching
is a reflection of this very reality.
It is through this paradigm that we explore,
in a five part series, Catholic teaching regarding
homosexuality, contraception, adultery,
fornication, and masturbation.
Monday, March 01, 2004
As the inaugual post of this new blog, I thought I would post an essay entitled "What it Means to be Catholic." This was originally a transcript of a speech I gave to a local Toastmasters group a few years ago. This will set the paradigm of this blog's mission.
What Does it Mean to be Catholic?
What does it mean to be Catholic? It goes without saying that
one of the chief aims of Catholic apologetics and evangelization
is to give a persuasive answer to this question by providing
scriptural, historical, and logical support for any given
Catholic doctrine or practice.
Personal experience has revealed to me that, in discussing the
Catholic faith with others, openness to these doctrinal
arguments are in many cases better facilitated by first giving
a basic overview of what being a Catholic means.
It is important from the outset that in explaining what we mean
that we first define the key terms that we use, which in this case
is the word “ Catholic “. The word “ Catholic “ is a Greek word
meaning universal which, according to the Webster’s
New World Dictionary (1990 Third Edition), comes from two
Greek words Kata meaning complete and Holos meaning
whole.
Although the word Catholic is not found anywhere in Scripture,
the universal nature, or catholicity, of the Church is clearly
expressed in the New Testament.
For example, in 1 Cor. 12:12, St. Paul states:
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the
members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with
Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--
Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of
one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but
of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I
do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less
a part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am
not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make
it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye,
where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an
ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God
arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he
chose. If all were a single organ, where would the body be?
As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
Here we have a description of a body of believers diverse in
culture, talents, and functions, yet one in Christ; therefore
one in belief. This is the essence of universality, where the
many different parts are harmoniously held together in
unity. This unity is authoritatively safeguarded by the
hierarchal Church, instituted by Christ himself, entrusted to
the Apostles (Matt 18:18) and to their successors,
the Catholic bishops and in a special way to Peter,
the head of the Apostles (Matt.16:18), and to his
successor, the bishop of Rome, i.e. the Pope.
It is with this confidence that St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a
disciple of the Apostle John, can say in his Letter to the
Symrneans in the year 100 A.D.:
“ Where the bishop is there is the Catholic Church.”
Regarding the primacy of the Roman Church (and by logical
extension, its bishop), he says:
Ignatius...to the church also which holds the presidency, in the
location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of
honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success,
worthy of sanctification, and because you the presidency in love,
named after Christ and named after the Father.
(Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
The quote from the Letter to the Smyrneans is the earliest
written account we know of using the word “ Catholic “ to
describe the Church. The context of this letter is rather clear
in that his hearers are already familiar with the term Catholic.
Moreover, since this statement was made in the beginning of
the second century, it is possible, if not likely, that the apostles
themselves were familiar with this term as well.
Unfortunately, the universality of the Church is not so easy to
see today considering that there are thousands of different
Christian denominations at odds with one another over such
important issues as what is necessary for salvation, whether
or not Scripture is the sole authority of the Church, the nature
of the Lord’s Supper, and many other things. Such discord is
not what Our Lord intended for his Church as expressed by
his prayer for unity in John 17:20-21:
“ I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in
me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou,
Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so
that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. “
These divisions are the result of many difficult circumstances
that have given rise to many tragic misunderstandings. Here
it is fitting to recall the well-known statement of the late
Archbishop Fulton Sheen that: “ Not one hundred people
oppose the Roman Catholic Church but millions oppose
what they mistakenly think the Roman Catholic Church is. “
The causes of these misunderstandings, complex and nuanced
as they are, are due in part to the scandalous behaviors of
individual Catholics, some of whom have been members of her
hierarchy. This was recognized by Vatican II in its decree on
ecumenism:
For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all
divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, yet its
members fail to live by them with all the fervor that they should,
so that the radiance of the Church's image is less clear in the
eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and
the growth of God's kingdom is delayed.
(Unitatis redintegratio #4)
Pope John Paul II has repeated this sentiment throughout his pontificate:
The Catholic Church acknowledges and confesses the
weaknesses of her members, conscious that their sins
are so many betrayals of and obstacles to the
accomplishment of the Savior's plan. Because she feels
herself constantly called to be renewed in the spirit of the
Gospel, she does not cease to do penance.
( Encyclical Letter Ut Unim Sint, They May All Be
One 1995. Introduction)
It must be understood, however, that these weaknesses,
scandalous though they may be, do not in anyway negate
the need for the authority of the Church anymore than, say,
corruption on the part of certain police officers negates the
need for the authoritative protection provided by the police
department.
Furthermore, humanity, by its very nature, has a hierarchy built
into it, as is manifested in the family, in society, and in
government. And since human nature comes to its fulfillment in
its relationship to its creator, that is to say its religious
expression, this is even more true regarding the Church.
So, to answer the question “ What does it mean to be
Catholic? “ To be Catholic simply means to fully accept
the universal truth about God and man and to give loyal
submission to the authority instituted to safeguard it—
even in the face of misunderstandings and the worst of
scandals.
What Does it Mean to be Catholic?
What does it mean to be Catholic? It goes without saying that
one of the chief aims of Catholic apologetics and evangelization
is to give a persuasive answer to this question by providing
scriptural, historical, and logical support for any given
Catholic doctrine or practice.
Personal experience has revealed to me that, in discussing the
Catholic faith with others, openness to these doctrinal
arguments are in many cases better facilitated by first giving
a basic overview of what being a Catholic means.
It is important from the outset that in explaining what we mean
that we first define the key terms that we use, which in this case
is the word “ Catholic “. The word “ Catholic “ is a Greek word
meaning universal which, according to the Webster’s
New World Dictionary (1990 Third Edition), comes from two
Greek words Kata meaning complete and Holos meaning
whole.
Although the word Catholic is not found anywhere in Scripture,
the universal nature, or catholicity, of the Church is clearly
expressed in the New Testament.
For example, in 1 Cor. 12:12, St. Paul states:
For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the
members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with
Christ. For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body--
Jews or Greeks, slaves or free--and all were made to drink of
one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but
of many. If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I
do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less
a part of the body. And if the ear should say, "Because I am
not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make
it any less a part of the body. If the whole body were an eye,
where would be the hearing? If the whole body were an
ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God
arranged the organs in the body, each one of them, as he
chose. If all were a single organ, where would the body be?
As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
Here we have a description of a body of believers diverse in
culture, talents, and functions, yet one in Christ; therefore
one in belief. This is the essence of universality, where the
many different parts are harmoniously held together in
unity. This unity is authoritatively safeguarded by the
hierarchal Church, instituted by Christ himself, entrusted to
the Apostles (Matt 18:18) and to their successors,
the Catholic bishops and in a special way to Peter,
the head of the Apostles (Matt.16:18), and to his
successor, the bishop of Rome, i.e. the Pope.
It is with this confidence that St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a
disciple of the Apostle John, can say in his Letter to the
Symrneans in the year 100 A.D.:
“ Where the bishop is there is the Catholic Church.”
Regarding the primacy of the Roman Church (and by logical
extension, its bishop), he says:
Ignatius...to the church also which holds the presidency, in the
location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of
honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success,
worthy of sanctification, and because you the presidency in love,
named after Christ and named after the Father.
(Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
The quote from the Letter to the Smyrneans is the earliest
written account we know of using the word “ Catholic “ to
describe the Church. The context of this letter is rather clear
in that his hearers are already familiar with the term Catholic.
Moreover, since this statement was made in the beginning of
the second century, it is possible, if not likely, that the apostles
themselves were familiar with this term as well.
Unfortunately, the universality of the Church is not so easy to
see today considering that there are thousands of different
Christian denominations at odds with one another over such
important issues as what is necessary for salvation, whether
or not Scripture is the sole authority of the Church, the nature
of the Lord’s Supper, and many other things. Such discord is
not what Our Lord intended for his Church as expressed by
his prayer for unity in John 17:20-21:
“ I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in
me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou,
Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so
that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. “
These divisions are the result of many difficult circumstances
that have given rise to many tragic misunderstandings. Here
it is fitting to recall the well-known statement of the late
Archbishop Fulton Sheen that: “ Not one hundred people
oppose the Roman Catholic Church but millions oppose
what they mistakenly think the Roman Catholic Church is. “
The causes of these misunderstandings, complex and nuanced
as they are, are due in part to the scandalous behaviors of
individual Catholics, some of whom have been members of her
hierarchy. This was recognized by Vatican II in its decree on
ecumenism:
For although the Catholic Church has been endowed with all
divinely revealed truth and with all means of grace, yet its
members fail to live by them with all the fervor that they should,
so that the radiance of the Church's image is less clear in the
eyes of our separated brethren and of the world at large, and
the growth of God's kingdom is delayed.
(Unitatis redintegratio #4)
Pope John Paul II has repeated this sentiment throughout his pontificate:
The Catholic Church acknowledges and confesses the
weaknesses of her members, conscious that their sins
are so many betrayals of and obstacles to the
accomplishment of the Savior's plan. Because she feels
herself constantly called to be renewed in the spirit of the
Gospel, she does not cease to do penance.
( Encyclical Letter Ut Unim Sint, They May All Be
One 1995. Introduction)
It must be understood, however, that these weaknesses,
scandalous though they may be, do not in anyway negate
the need for the authority of the Church anymore than, say,
corruption on the part of certain police officers negates the
need for the authoritative protection provided by the police
department.
Furthermore, humanity, by its very nature, has a hierarchy built
into it, as is manifested in the family, in society, and in
government. And since human nature comes to its fulfillment in
its relationship to its creator, that is to say its religious
expression, this is even more true regarding the Church.
So, to answer the question “ What does it mean to be
Catholic? “ To be Catholic simply means to fully accept
the universal truth about God and man and to give loyal
submission to the authority instituted to safeguard it—
even in the face of misunderstandings and the worst of
scandals.
