Cardinal Dew on 'Intrinsically Disordered'

Dear Cardinal Dew here, not speaking about the family but the favourite of many senior clergy: homosexuality. No wonder Cardinal Dolan says the traditional family is today an excluded minority, even in the Church. Anyhow Dew is uncomfortable with the phrase 'intrinsically disordered', he wants us to find a new way of expressing something which 'even if there is something which is against Church teaching we put it in such a way that is friendly to them...'.

The problem is the Cardinal is confused, the Church is not speaking about homosexual persons but genital acts, which is Church politely, trying not to mention anal intercourse for example,  it is these acts that are intrinsically disordered.

'Intrinsic' meaning 'by its very nature', 'disordered' meaning, 'disrupt the normal functioning of' something'. The normative function of the sexual act is, its purpose, is to ensure the human race continues, there is no other way for it to do so. Thus describing homosexual sexual activity as 'intrinsically disordered' is the Church trying to do what the Venerable Cardinal is asking for, finding a language in which the Church is trying to respect those with a 'deep seated' same sex attraction, without getting into highly descriptive language to describe same sex genital acts, if you have the stomach for it you could visit the Terrence Higgins Trust, and view the material they recommend for schools. Affection, love, admiration are not 'intrinsically disordered' but sexual acts are.

What the catechism actually says is 

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 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. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

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

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues 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 approach Christian perfection.

The problem is that this two word phrase says precisely what the Church means, it is also what homosexual people object to most strongly, either because they assume the Church is is speaking about them as being 'intrinsically disordered', which it is not or because they find any discussion of the proper ordering of human sexuality offensive, as some might find even the definition of family .

What the Cardinal is asking seems to be that we do not speak about 'sin' at all, which seems to be one of the great problems of the Church today. The obvious example is to speak about 'second marriages', when what we are actually talking about is something which is directly against Jesus' teaching on marriage, we dare not to use Jesus' language, Jesus is not afraid to say to the woman at the well: For you have had five husbands; and he whom you now have is not your husband. I tend to be a bit afraid of saying that, even when it is more than obvious.

For Cardinal Dew whose thinking, even in this short clip, is decidedly fuzzy, the problem is that for many homosexuals and certainly for the Gay Movement any criticism of homosexual acts will be deeply offensive, even if it is expressed in the mildest terms possible.

Perhaps His Eminence should read this article in Pink News, in which the Pope despite his welcoming of homosexual activists, even kissing and embracing Gay couples or having tea with transsexuals, is still a hate figure. He will be until the Church backs the Gay agenda 100%, and of course rejects anything Divine Revelation might ever had said.

..... in a Vatican Brewery

Those leprous courtiers, as the Pope himself calls them, seem unable to organise a ------- in the Vatican brewery. Everything about the Synod seems to be chaotic, from the working document, to the uncertainty of the process, from the exceedingly odd choice of the papally appointed members of the Synod (one needs only mention but one name, Daneels), to the lack of coordination between language groups, to say nothing of the secrecy - if a bishop speaks he does so not as a conspirator or as a private person but as the the head of a local Church, a successor of the Apostles, the Church has a right to know precisely what he has said.

I am sure some of the Fathers must be asking, "Why the hell are we here?" There is obviously outrageous manipulation going on but who is manipulating who? The Holy Father's intervention about the 'hermeneutic of conspiracy' in the wake of the letter of concern sent to him by thirteen prominent Cardinals, published here by Magister, has only heightened the sense of confusion. Here is Damian Thompson's take on it. His Holiness has certainly produced a mess, a rather expensive one, not just financially expensive either but expensive to the Church's credibility, but the question is can he produce order of his mess. It increasingly seems unlikely.

I can't help thinking of the Pope's plea that every Catholic parish in Europe should welcome a refugee family, and yet with all the wealth and resources of the Vatican State over which he rules, only two families have been welcomed, temporarily, there. One is left with the idea of sheer ineffectuality, of words but no action. Mgr Gilby said of a certain knightly order, "they make a great deal of fuss to do comparatively very little good". In a Church where dialogue has taken the place of evangelisation we must expect only chatter.

Antonio Socci said over the weekend speaking of the Synod as a war machine, “One knows, in these times, that the German engines need to be scrapped and the Argentinian coachwork is junk mixed with Peronism and rusty liberation theology.”  and “They want to apply their disastrous recipes to the whole Church, with devastating effects on a global scale.” Socci refers to the ineffectuallity of the Church in South-America and in Germany. Why has the Pope with great deliberation chosen that the Synod should be led by bishops of failing, even dying Churches? Why are the voices of fecund growing Churches almost ignored?
Socci perhaps should be read in an Italian context, along with Magister and de Mattei that seems to growing in its criticism of Francis, which should be worrying for Francis, especially with increasingly falling numbers at Papal audiences but even John Allen says:

In other words, Francis is basically shock therapy for the Church.
Such therapy is notoriously painful and unsettling, often causing patients to experience confusion and disorientation — both of which are palpably present in some circles of Catholicism these days. Yet there are times when it’s the only way to jolt the patient out of a funk.
Psychiatrists will tell you that shock therapy should be used only as a last resort, and it doesn’t always work. It’s effective only about half the time, and even when it does succeed, its effects often wear off over time.

Sometimes shock therapy can kill the patient, especially in the hands of a incompetent unproven practitioners.

For English followers of the Synod our problem is the machinations of the pro-gay Fr Rosica, the English speaking presenter of the Vatican's not too competent press corps, has meant that a very partisan presentation of proceedings has come through to us.

What seems now to be the the main concern of the Synod Fathers is not the Kasper proposal or the homosexual agenda but the Synod itself or rather Pope Francis as the Synod's architect in chief. In the long run what being exposed is the manipulation of the Church by the one whose real function is to act as as a point of unity and order in the Church.
Our problem is if one pope can be forced to resign by one cabal, what can another cabal do?

"Meet people where they are at"

Having been brought up in the "Meet people where they are at", school of moral theology, liturgy etc, I was rather pleased when I heard about this 'tweet' from Card Napier. Until I saw it on Fr Z's blog I didn't realise it was also a jab at the Fr Rosica, who seems to be manipulating the English language press coverage of the Synod on behalf of his own particular lobby group.

"Meet people where they are at", strikes me as being the most un-Christian idea ever! Christ keeps saying, 'Come follow me', he calls us out of the place we are at, out of our old life. He gives us hope, more importantly he gives us grace, power, to move away from sin. 

"Meet people where they are at", has all the problems of introspection Cardinal Ratzinger spoke about when he wrote about introspective worship leading to introspective ecclesiology.

"Meet people where they are at", tends to mean that the Church or Christians end up by moving in with them. This phrase I am sure is one of the reasons the Church has lost a sense of Mission and is unable to call to conversion and therefore to evangelise effectively.

Gradualism and Mortal Sin

I met the former Anglican bishop of Gloucester Peter Ball once when he was the Bishop of Lewes, I thought he was a faux. He is now 82 and was sentenced to prison today, it is quite possible that he will die in prison.

He was rather pleasant man, beguiling, even giving the impression of being holy and ascetic, he was certainly not unlearned, he gave the impression of goodness, to many. I also, all those years ago, knew a young man, a gardener, who was actually rather beautiful and blond muscular, his physical beauty was enhanced by spiritual beauty, he loved God, he wanted to spend his life serving God, he wasn't unintelligent but there was a childlike simplicity about him. Though it is vague in my memory, I remember him telling me about becoming a member of the Bishop's 'community' which was basically about him stripping of the old man and being naked in the bishop's chapel, as he was prayed over and embraced before being clothed in a habit. I don't know if this type of thing is what constituted the charges, the young man was certainly vulnerable and I suppose could easily have been taken advantage of, and I don't know if this particular young man was one of the complainants.

According to contemporary Catholic teaching, the theory of 'Gradualism', would suggest that we looked at the good that Peter Ball did, at his pleasant nature, his beguiling qualities, his holiness, his learning. Classical Catholic theology, which perhaps is less 'merciful' would say he was a pervert, and in fact what appeared good merely added to his sinfulness, and made him even more of a danger, more attractive, more of a source of corruption, that in fact his 'virtue' rather than being in any sense a mitigation of his vice only added it, by making him more dangerous.

It is significant that St Paul in his lists of sinners doesn't ever introduce mitigating factors, neither does the Lord. A sinner is simply a sinner, the Pharisees might be white washed but they are still 'tombs full of dead men's bones', a source of corruption. (Matt 23:27). Someone in serious sin is sinner, which is what the classic doctrine on Mortal Sin teaches. God always extends his mercy but it is necessary for a man to accept it, and to accept it when it is offered, lest like the foolish virgins the door is slammed closed behind them or like the towns the disciples were sent to, the time of mercy ended when or if the dust was shaken from their feet.

Mortal sin, classically, is easily recognised and easily avoided, either because it is directly contrary to the Natural Law or because it is positively condemned in scripture. I think introduction of an intermediate category of 'Grave Sin' is actually helpful. Mortal Sin does what the label says on the tin, it kills our relationship with God. Venial sin is more difficult to shake off, it leaves us damaged and weakened but it does not separate us from God, though it damages that relationship.

Ultimately Sin is not the main concern of scripture but Conversion or Repentance is, hence the woman caught in adultery is merely sent away to sin no more.  The terrible problem with the Gradualist approach, which seems to be adopted by many of the Synod Fathers blinds us, the Church to the terrible nature and consequences of sin. It also blinds the Church to the importance of mission, because one important aspect of it is to point out sin, especially if we are to avoid hypocrisy within the Church, we can't purify the Church of sin if are blind to it, if we refuse to judge.

I wonder if Gradualism itself was the cause of the cover-up of child abuse, we tried to see the good and ignored the evil men did. We overlooked heresy because we saw niceness.

After the 'lio'

I have been pondering the connection between 'trust' and 'faith'. Because Christ gave us a Church founded on the Apostles rather than a book in order for people to believe in Christ they must first of all trust the Apostles, the bishops are the successors of the Apostles. Perhaps the saddest development in the Church has been the break down in trust between the faithful and their bishops and maybe equally important the paralleled break down in the trust between the world and the Church, to the point, in the West at least, where the idea of the Church was on the verge of becoming toxic.

The child abuse crisis was certainly one important contributor contributor to this toxicity. It is interesting to compare the two ways in which Francis and Benedict dealt with it. Benedict, with a truly pastoral heart, dealt personally with cases brought to him. It was his Friday penance to weep over and deal with the dossiers, and every pastoral visit had with it a meeting with the abused and a public apology. Francis, a more political Pope, or perhaps just a more skilled administrator, has set up a commission to deal with the matter, has had a few meetings with abused but still feels able to console the US bishops on the suffering they endured over the issue and is confident enough to invite Cardinal Daneels, who has a well documented history of cover-up to the Synod, and the media seem quite disinterested.

One of things we might admire Francis for is taking the poison out of the relationship between the Church and the world. In many ways he is less revolutionary than his predecessor, he says and does the things the world expects the Pope to say and do. One of the problems is perhaps that he appeals more to those outside the Church than those inside it. Benedict carefully chose to conceal the Papacy under signs and symbols, Francis has got rid of most of those and placed his personality front and centre. The world seems more comfortable with that, it can deal with 'personalities' especially political ones. One of things that fascinates me is that, listening to the Pope, I never quite know what he is saying or I think he is saying one thing, only to have it readjusted a few days later, if it has caused a little storm in the media, by Fr Lombardi, who carefully explains what His Holiness had really meant.

The change in the relationship of the Church and the media is the most significant but within the Church Francis seems to be much more divisive figure. 'Cardinals are fighting like ferrets in a sack', as one commentator said recently. The bishops arriving at the Synod can easily be divided into 'innovators' and those who oppose them, even Cardinal Prefects speak openly of the possibility of schism. There is a sense of suspicion alive in the Church, an open mistrust of certain bishops and some even dare to suggest that the Pope himself is not to be trusted, though more loyal Catholics are likely to criticise the Pope's ministers rather than the Pope himself. There seems in some instances a visceral hatred of Francis on some internet sites.

Again, as one recent commentator said, 'No-one disputes Pope Francis can make a mess (lio), now he must bring order out of the mess'. Perhaps Cardinal Erdo's opening speech to the Synod yesterday was the beginnings of that. The Papacy as portrayed by both Vatican Councils is hardly the vision most Catholics have. Pastor Aeternus seems a closed book to many Catholics and certainly to the worldly media (Dr DeVille has a very good article on the limits of Papal authority). Jesus Christ, not the Pope, is after all the head of the Church, though many Catholics, even some bishops might go along with the rather iffy Mgr Pinto of the, Dean of the Rota saying,  "The Jubilee Year of Mercy expects this sign of humble obedience (on the part of the Church's shepherds) to the Spirit who speaks to them through Francis". That is just Ultramontane heresy, with friends like that who needs enemies?

The centrality of Peter is essential to the Church, it is Dr DeVille points out at the service of 'unity'. After the lio Pope Francis has to re-establish trust not just in himself but in but in the bishops in the Church as he has done outside it in his Papacy, because trust is an essential to faith and mistrust of the Pope and Bishops is seriously damaging to the Church's integrity and ultimately to individuals' faith. Unitatis Redintegratio is clear that not only is disunity a scandal but it is also detrimental to faith. Speaking for myself the shifting sands of the build up to the Synod has hardly strengthened my faith.

As the Synod begins

Monsignors with their lovers is nothing new, often bishops are quite happy for problem priests to go off to Rome or somewhere else and to take their problems with them. I suspect this was the case with Msgr. Krzysztof Charamsa. It is worth noticing that he has been sacked not for his 'gayness' but for embarrassing or compromising the Synod, read Lombardi's press release.
The Monsignor seems to be acting out a stereotype of "me, me, me" gay behaviour, it shows immaturity. Pope Benedict's prohibition of those with a 'deep seated homosexual tendencies' being ordained would apply to this man, I don't think it applies to everyone. It is after all a prohibition on a 'deep seated' tendencies.

One of the things I find sad about the majority of those who leave the priest nowadays is that they invariably leave not just the priesthood but the Church too. It indicates a lack of faith, a shallowness of faith. I really do not have a problem with a priest with same sex attraction, I have a problem with priests who do not have enough faith to overcome it, to prefer God rather than their own will, this applies to everyone, heterosexuals as well.
Christ taught us to say, 'Thy will be done', Our Lady says, 'Be it done to me according to thy word' and, 'Do whatever he tells you'. If those phrases mean nothing

As the Synod assembles in Rome, especially in the light of last years machinations and manipulations, what I am looking for are signs of faith, signs that they believe in the power grace. As Fr Tomlinson says:

...what is really under debate is the role of grace and sin, the nature of revelation and the way authority and fidelity are to be understood in the present age. The modernists want to overthrow traditional Catholic teaching and methodology to conform to the Spirit of the age. And with the Synod deck stacked in their favour, and with it now being a matter of public record that they have control of the Vatican and have been manipulating the process for years, we stand at a moment of genuine crisis for those whose desire is to be faithful to Christ.

Or as a priest said on the radio this morning, "No-one doubts Francis' ability to make a mess, what matters is his ability to bring order out of the chaos".

Change a Culture, Keep the Doctrine

There is a little reference to Gramasci in a rather interesting interview with Fr Fessio on Rorate. Gramasci is an important Italian Communist thinker. He was imprisoned by Mussolini for the last eleven years of his life he is perhaps underestimated outside of Italy but his ideas have become very much part of the culture or management of change,

In a world where class war has moved from economic control to control of culture, from worker's rights to minority rights, Marxist ideologues are now rarely found on soap boxes or the barricades but in university senior common rooms, or more often in the arts and media. Gramasci was concerned with revolution but rather than the 'hard' revolution of an armed uprising against a despot with 'soft' revolution of changing culture, in ecclesiastical terms of keeping doctrine the same but changing pastoral practice. Obviously if you change practice you then either do not to change doctrine because they way in which we understand it changes and then eventually our way of speaking about doctrine in the future changes and we then introduce a situation in which the original doctrine becomes meaningless and is 'organically' changed. That is changed from below, change from below brings about  change from above and eventually overthrows the existing order.

The important thing for Gramasci was to create a certain confusion a mess, a "lio", but based on what was reasonable and from there to increase demands by increments, for example, the change with the general acceptance of the Gay movement, 'loving relationships' everyone can relate to, 'people suffering because they love' makes a rather attractive narrative identity, in a heterosexual context it is part of our cultural narrative and is much more attractive than discussing anal sex, which I suppose a few people still have qualms about. Thus in a few short years we move from a criminal act, to legalising consensual homosexual acts to recognising homosexual unions to marriage equality,  and children being taught about such things in school and we can well imagine the eventual removal every other sexual taboo, not just those that once merely surrounded homosexuality. In moral terms it is Marxist perpetual revolution.

Students of the Council might well  see Bugnini using Gramascian methodology in first disrupting the calender, creating confusion between Paul VI and the Liturgical Concillium, then going beyond anything the Council Fathers mandated but who but a knave or a fool would dare to suggest that the Church has for one single instant changed her teaching on the Holy Eucharist from what Aquinas or Trent taught.

Perhaps doctrines are not important but rubrics and pastoral practice are because they create a culture of belief, hence they are much more important than dry words in some tome.

So there is absolutely no reason to fear that the Synod will change one iota of doctrine.