My Reflections on the Document

BODY

FRANKENSTEIN OR THE MUMMY'S CURSE?

Yesterday, as you may already know, the Vatical finally published its document on homosexuals and seminaries.

The whole situation would be pathetically funny if it wasn't so serious. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.

The closest analogy I can draw is to a sort of exposition I witnessed several times as a first-year at college. There were kids in the class... in my experience, usually well-dressed, usually late, and always more gregarious with the instructor than there was any need to be. These students talked at length, sometimes turning the discussion into a lecture on points that may or may not relate to the actual subject. On a couple of occasions, I was able to glance at the papers these students had written, and these also had persistent similarities.

Their writing had wonderful rhythm. Poets and readers should study these papers because the actual sounds had complexity and a nuanced, even sophisticated beauty. Sentences and paragraphs were balanced with recurrences and repetitions that suggested symmetry yet were somehow just irregular enough to acknowledge the messiness and tribulation of the real world.

If not read carefully, this prosody could effectively mask the other common characteristic of these papers, which was a profound lack of critical rigor. They writers opened gaping holes, made assertations that leaned on the air, though this might be covered only by their whirling vocabulary. They'd leap from one argument to a presumably correlated claim, jumps that they'd never explicitly acknowledge except maybe by tossing in the word "inductively." The connections, however, were rarely inductive, or even necessarily relevant. Most obnoxiously, they'd make outrageous claims in their theses and closing senteces, asserting a broad applicability - the essentiality - of the fundamental truth they expressed. And this could be dangerous: someone lured in by the dancing sequences of citations and clauses, inspired by the soaring audacity and idealism of the writing, might find themselves nodding in agreement, completely bypassing consideration of the facts and supports in the writing itself.

These students typically didn't succeed at the University of Chicago. They'd gotten by in high school through careful listening and abrupt talent and intelligence, but the instuctors they cozied up to often vivisected their argument, revealing that the reanimated human was just a dusty, crusted corpse sewn back together.

To set aside hyperbole for a moment, because I've been trying to replicate this technique, as has the Vatican today, it's a common trick, it's an old trick, but it's used and used and used again because it very often works.

Will it work today? Will the Vatican succeed in divesting the Church of its valuable and much-needed gay pastors? I'll get to that, but first I have to do a pale imitation of my insightful professors, Ms. Sternstein who treated us to pizza and wine, and Curt who took me to see Angels in America. I'm going to vivisect this Vatican document and expose the unbeating heart at its heart.

* * * * *

PROFOUNDLY DISORDERED PROSE

If the Vatican document hides itself in a dancing sequence of citations and clauses, it betrays itself through one telling trick it employs a little too conspicuously: "profoundly." The word comes up six times in four pages. That's a Profundity Index (PI) of 1.5 per vellum. They've abused the word as if it were a golden-haired altar server... First we learn that some candidates have "profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies," before observing that these "profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies" represent a trial for the afflictees. They then express a "profound effect" for those with profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, but declare that one may not admit someone with "profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies" to seminaries or priesthood. Why? Because there are negative consequences for admitting those with "profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies." Incidentally, if a person with "profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies" lies about said profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies, than they are exhibiting an inauthentic attitude that does not correspond to a spirit of "truth, allegiance, and availability."

It is worth noting that the abuse of the word profoundly, in five out of six cases, is based upon the fact that the document will not refer to a homosexual in terms other than one with "profoundly deep-rooted homosexual tendencies." The very verbose choice seems to be based upon a distinction made early on between homosexual acts and homosexual inclinations... at the least this is curious, since many straights engage at times in homosexual acts (condemmed as "grave sins"), which the document essentially admits: "homosexual tendencies that may be simply the expression of a transitory problem." This is a polemic, then, not against homosexual acts, but homosexuals. Homosexual acts are secondarily, almost incidentally treated, after the main argument which is about the inclination toward homosexuality.

The sixth use of the word is in the middle of a paragraph-long sentence, and is a declaration that the Church "profoundly respects" homosexuals. This is probably inserted to add force to the one qualification of an argument that, I would certainly contend, does not display much else in terms of respect. At any rate, the continual reiteration of profundity divests the statement of any force it may have acquired through its very profundness.

All this considered, however, the statements are useful and interesting because they structure the argument both more succinctly and coherently than the subheadings and layout of the document itself. Consider sentences that feature "profoundly" with the references to "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" replaced with "homosexuals" and "homosexuality."

- [The present instruction] contains norms regarding a particular question, made more urgent by the present situation, that is that of the admission or non-admission to the seminary and Holy Orders of homosexuals.
- Concerning homosexuality, that one discovers in a certain number of men and women, [it is] objectively disordered and often constitute[s] a trial, even for these men and women.
- In light of this teaching, this department, in agreement with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, holds it necessary clearly to affirm that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, [are homosexuals], or support the so-called gay culture.
- The negative consequences that may derive from the Ordination of homosexuals are by no means to [be] ignored.
- If a candidate practices homosexuality or [is homosexual], his spiritual director, like his confessor, must dissuade him, in conscience, from proceeding towards Ordination.

To be fair, the transcription makes the document both more abrupt and less PC than it was intended to be. Nevertheless, the word profoundly has, at least, pointed us to the heart of the document. A close examination of the document itself without considering enforcibility or any of the attendant questions acknowledges and highlights the fact that homosexuality - sexual attraction to the same sex - is its concern, that homosexuals will be prohibited from Orders and priesthood, and superiors must intervene in the progress of homosexual candidates.

If the argument was obfuscating and confusingly written, the word profound emphasizes its essential train of thought.

As for the justifications, the worthwhile qualifications I've slashed out of the rest of the document; there weren't any. Read for yourself. The rest of the document invokes the gravity of homosexual acts as demonstrated in scripture without citing clear examples. The document qualifies this fact slightly by noting that the goal is not "to linger on all the questions by nature emotional or sexual," and so doing dodges the fact that it does not linger on any of the questions. The rest is filled with a litany of a priori statements masking as well-supported or self-evident arguments. These include statements on the nature of pastoral care, the nature of human empathy and communication, and the nature of sexuality. None of the statements are supported any way except for the one mention of sacred scripture and a nod to the Catechism.

Now we can move from from the document's profoundly disordered prose to its profoundly disordered logic.

* * * * *

PROFOUNDLY DISORDERED LOGIC

[The present instruction] contains norms regarding a particular question, made more urgent by the present situation, that is that of the admission or non-admission to the seminary and Holy Orders of homosexuals.

This statement seems inoffensive on the surface, which is part of what makes it so alarming in essence. By invoking the urgency of "the present situation" in such vague terms, the reader isn't invited to examine a specific problem for a specific solution, but to supply any prejudicial or momentary interpretation of "the present situation" to justify the measures proscribed. It's what a rigorous secular critic ought to term "rhetorical relativism."

Concerning homosexuality, that one discovers in a certain number of men and women, [is it] also objectively disordered and often constitute[s] a trial, even for these men and women.

The document asserts a trial, but makes no provision to address the problems or circumstances surrounding the trial. Are they saying that pre-Exilic idolatry excused Assyrian atrocities? If this is their attitude towards worldly suffering, why have we been bothering with Catholic charities and social justice all this time?

The document also outlines expectations of homosexuals, stating that they are "called to realize the will of God" and "to unite to the Sacrifice of the Lord the difficulties that they may encounter." There's an insistance to the church at large that we must receive homosexuals with "respect and delicacy." These statements closely echo the Catechism's passages on homosexuality, but they neither orient themselves to the Catechism's argument (which focuses exclusively on chastity), nor do they situate themselves in the practical aspects of the current discussion. This ommission raises problems as well:

Given the prohibitions of the document as a whole, isn't it important to define "respect and dignity?"

Also, the document makes demands on the laity and homosexuals. Why is there no indication of a demand being made upon the leadership of the church? How are they going to apply these rules to their own ranks? How do they intend to address the situation of already-ordained gay pastors?

The document states that one will avoid every mark of "unjust discrimination."

Yet another problem: In what way is barring homosexuals from the priesthood not "unjust discimination?" How does the document define "just" and "unjust." The claims made as to the unsuitability of homosexuals to pastoral care does not provide any evidence. Moreover, it does not address the many (thousands, at least) of arguments to the contrary. Just as the document urges seminary heads to err on the side of caution and assume that a candidate is unsuitable, I find it in the spirit of the document for me to err on the side of caution and assume that any discrimination not rigorously justified is "unjust discrimination."

In short, argument does not provide any basis for the justice of its own discrimination. How much validity or force, then, may we attach to its exhortation to not unjustly discriminate?

And finally, the point is often raised, including in this document, that one does not have the right to vocation, yet this cannot assume the absence of discrimination. A careful review of the definitions of "right" and "discrimination,", makes it clear that you don't have to have a right to something in order to be discriminated against. Frankly, if discrimination were not an issue, then the discussion of "rights" would be moot regardless.

In light of this teaching, this department, in agreement with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, holds it necessary clearly to affirm that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, may not admit to the seminary and Holy Orders those who practice homosexuality, [are homosexuals], or support the so-called gay culture.

The most obvious problem with this statement ("so-called gay culture") is also the most superficial, so I'll save it for later.

Fundamentally, the trouble is "in light of this teaching." What teaching? As I mentioned, while the phrase "objectively disordered" originates in the Catechism, it restricts itself to the imposition of chastity, which is a given for seminarians anyway. The document also mentions scripture, briefly, but discussion of homosexuality in the Bible is infrequent and multivalent. The most specific citations of homosexuality discuss only homosexual acts... in fact, there's no mention or condemnation in the Bible of romantic love between members of the same sex.

This is the central problem with the whole document.

This is why the document is a house of cards.

It makes a series of generalizing statements on the merits of two very vague citations which, even if considered an immutable authority, do not demand, imply, or even suggest the measures the document puts forward. Both the Catechism and the Bible are specifically, and one might argue, intentionally limited in their responses to homosexuality. Quite simply, the "sacred scripture" upon which the whole document rests does not support the actions the document puts forward. The document is a house without a cornerstone.

As an aside, the phrase "so-called gay culture," has an obvious bias that is not contextualized or explained... I'm suprised they didn't dress that bit up a little more. It's telling in that they've further restricted the priesthood not only from homosexuals, but also from anyone straight who might support gay culture. As such, I would be made ineligible by this statement, if I weren't already through marriage.

The negative consequences that may derive from the Ordination of homosexuals are by no means to [be] ignored.

Again, the flaws come out through the questions one might ask:

What are the negative consequences and from what are they derived?

They've supplied nothing convincing here. Conversely, I can offer many positive examples... my godfather is gay, and he not only tolerated a string of questions from me that lasted for three years, but he helped to guide me through a time in my life when I was deciding whether or not to be married. I'm known both straight and gay Catholics and non-Catholics who've ranged from clairvoyant to clueless when it comes to any sort of relationship. Defer to discrimination again... how do we decide if discrimination is just? Has it been amply justified? In this case, it's been only very briefly and transparently justified. Therefore, no.

The second problem is embodied in the pseudo-colloquialism "by no means to [be] ignored."

What is this jump from ignoring a candidate's sexuality to barring gay candidates from the priesthood? Again, the document defers to an inability to pastorally care, but there's the powerful counterexample of highly successful gay pastors, and the reiteration that the document doesn't provide any genuine evidence.

In fact, technically, sexuality hasn't been ignored, even before this document was written. Inasumuch as the documnet claims sexuality is commented upon in sacred scripture.

Lastly, why does the action taken necessarily have to be barring yet another broad swath of people from the priesthood? Do they even want any priests anymore? Do they want us to continue receiving communion?

If a candidate practices homosexuality or [is homosexual], his spiritual director, like his confessor, must dissuade him, in conscience, from proceeding towards Ordination.

By now I think I've beaten my central arguments to death, so I'll wrap up by appealing to the emotions to which I've been trying not to resort, as I've written this response.

They're saying that homosexuality is objectively disordered. They're asking spiritual directors to be confessors. What do confessors do? By dictionary.com, a confessor is "a priest who hears confession and gives absolution." And what is confession but an admission of sin. In this last part we have not a mere supplication, but an insistance upon more than honesty; naked admission and willing acceptance of Vatican-mandated consequences.

If this insistance is reasonable, than I am perfectly willing to turn the question back around upon the Bishops and Cardinals who enabled and protected the wolves who preyed upon the flock to the shame of their Church:

What is your confession?

What were your sins?

How will you be paying your penance?

END OF POST.