Comment on Fr James Martin’s piece yesterday continues, with some of it really valuable. I wrote about this yesterday, and reprinted here a comment of my own – in which I did not in fact answer Fr Martin’s question. Later, in responding to another reader, in a round about way I did get to my own answer to the question. This in turn led to a further interchange, and a magnificent contribution from Jim McCrae, which is absolutely relevant here.
Because this interchange involved two key elements in the driving motivation behind QTC, I want to share them here. Because the “Judas Kiss” seems to have struck a chord, here is another:
Kiss of Judas_Brøns parish church _Passion of Christ ( 15th century)
The interchange began with an observation, clearly sincere, by “Martin”, who suggested that we use serious prayer to find an answer – and then to follow its outcome, which would be obedience to church teaching. I am sure that many of my readers will spot the obvious logical flaw. Here is my response:
Martin, you rightly encourage us to pray in good faith and to live by the outcome. Why then, do you assume that this will be in unthinking conformity with the church teaching on sexuality?
Remember that the full Magisterium and canon law cover far more ground than just sexual ethics. The guidelines on interpreting Scripture prepared by the Pontifical Bible Commission, for insistence, stress the need to use far more subtle and carfeul techniques than appear to have been used to justify the teaching against homosexuality: the catechism quotes the story of Sodom as justification, but no reputable bible scholar still accepts that this particular story is about believes that Genesis 19 is about lvoing relationships between men – there is simply no reference anywhere in the ext to anything of the sort.
The Gospels, and the specific example of Christ himself, make clear that love is more important than scrupulously following the letter of laws as demanded by religious authorities.
The Magisterium makes clear that we have an obligation to demonstrate real love and compassion, and to fight against injustice wherever we find it.
The Magisterium also makes clear that we have an obligation, where we find in conscience that we disagree with church teaching, our obligation is to follow conscience, not the rules. For the last forty years, countless couples ahve been advised by their priests to follow this precept in dealing with the instructions in humanae vita.
Canon law commands that when we are in serious disagreement with our church leaders, we ahve an obligation to speak up and to tell them so.
In my own life, I can assure you that I have indeed taken this matter into the most serious prayer, alone and under expert spiritual direction, including in several extended directed retreats. I have studied carefully much of what has been written on the subject, in church documents and by other expert theologians.
The outcome of this prayer and study, now extending over just about a quarter of a century, is a firm conviction, in conscience, that the standard church teaching is simply wrong, and is outweighed for me by the other elements of the Magisterium – especially on the obligation to combat injustice wherever I see it.
For me, I see that injustice inside the church, and so it is that I feel compelled, in full accordance with church teaching, to speak up for the truth – and not for the standard line on sexual ethics.
This I do, inter alia, by devoting considerably time to assisting with the organization of masses with a special focus on lesbian and gay Catholics, and by writing for gay Catholics at my blog, “Queering the Church”, where I try hard to persuade people not simply to walk away from the church in despair, but to accept and work with the other gifts that the church has to offer.
So I guess that, by a long and circuitous route, I finally come to answering Fr Martin’s question, “What is a gay Catholic to do?” This, at least, is what I have done. It has never been easier, and glib responses about simply following teaching, or even praying and then following sexual teaching, are really not helpful.
To which Martin (who seems ot think that I am ” very sincere in your love for gay and lesbian Catholics”) replied
You state that, “The Magisterium also makes clear that we have an obligation, where we find in conscience that we disagree with church teaching, our obligation is to follow conscience, not the rules.” Where do you see this? Please remember that our conscience has to be well formed.
I’m not quite sure waht more I need to do, apart from prayer, direction retreats, and reading over 20 years to develop a “formed” conscience, unless its jsut to lie down and accept church teaching , but I’ll let that pass. It is Jim McRea who gave Martin his answer, quoting Aquinas, Newman and Ratzinger. (Martin, God bless him, does not give up easily, and dismisses these three as “just individuals”, and so not the authoritative voice of the Church).
Here’s Jim – and heartfelt thanks to you.
Martin asked: “The Magisterium also makes clear that we have an obligation, where we find in conscience that we disagree with church teaching, our obligation is to follow conscience, not the rules.” Where do you see this?
“Anyone upon whom the ecclesiastical authority, in ignorance of true facts, imposes a demand that offends (his) clear conscience, should perish in excommunication rather than violate (his) conscience.“ St. Thomas Aquinas
“I should look to see what theologians could do for me, what the Bishops and clergy around me, what my confessor; what friends whom I have revered: and if, after all, I could not take their view of the matter, then I must rule myself by my own judgement and my own conscience.”
“Was St. Peter infallible on that occasion at Antioch when St. Paul withstood him? Was St. Victor infallible when he separated from his communion the Asiatic Churches? Or Liberius when in like manner he excommunicated Athanasius? And, to come to later times, was Gregory XIII, when he had a medal struck in honor of the Bartholomew massacre? Or Paul IV, in his conduct towards Elizabeth? Or Sextus V when he blessed the Armada? Or Urban VIII when he persecuted Galileo? No Catholic ever pretends that these Popes were infallible in these acts. Since then infallibility alone could block the exercise of conscience, and the Pope is not infallible in that subject-matter in which conscience is of supreme authority, no dead-lock, such as implied in the objection which I am answering, can take place between conscience and the Pope.”
From Newman’s “Letter to the Duke of Norfolk”“For Newman, conscience represents the inner complement and limit of the church principle. Over the pope as the expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority there still stands one’s own conscience, which must be obeyed before all else, if necessary even against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority. This emphasis on the individual, whose conscience confronts him with a supreme and ultimate tribunal, and one which is in the last resort beyond the claim of external social groups, even of the official Church, also establishes a principle of opposition to increasing totalitarianism. Genuine ecclesiastical obedience is distinguished from any totalitarian claim which cannot accept any ultimate obligation of this kind beyond the reach of its dominating will.”
Joseph Ratzinger on article 16 of Gaudem et Spes, in Volume 5 of the “Commentary on Documents of Vatican II”, edited by Vorgrimler (New York/London 1969).
[ad#In post banner]
