Journal of Catholic Thought and Media

E-Publication March 17, 2000

Inside this Issue:

MEDIA MAKES A POOR PARENT, Anton Casta
A DIALOG WITH CALL TO ACTION? Doug McManaman
INSIDIOUS THREAT TO SENSE OF FATHERHOOD by Cardinal Ratzinger
ORDER YOUR CHILDREN THROUGH THE INTERNET by Dr. Donald Demarco

A Dialogue With Call To Action
by Doug McManaman

Fr. C. TA (Call To Action) and a Layman

Layman: Hello Father: I am curious about a few things. I noticed--I hope I don't misquote you on this--that you maintain that "sex is reserved for serious and mature relationships, which most often means marriage". It sounds to me as if you were implying that sex is not in itself a marital act, as I was brought up to believe. The reason I ask is that in my travels I have heard other priests teach that it is a marital act, and that outside of marriage the act of sex is "intrinsically disordered". I hear a lot of conflicting ideas from the pulpit these days. In fact, I even heard you once preach that "we are our own authority" and that the authority of the Holy Father is no different than ours (you actually compared it to the relationship we have to the President). I guess I'd really like to know if this is true, because if I am my own authority, I plan to use it.

What's really on my mind is this: if it is true that sex is not necessarily reserved for the institution of marriage, then the Church was wrong all these years. Moreover, if I am my own authority, then in another way the Church was also wrong all these years (so much for infallibility). So, my question is: "Why am I listening to the Church?" If secular society has been right all these years (in as much as secular society has always maintained that sex is not necessarily reserved for marriage, just mature couples--even same sex couples; and that nobody is infallible, especially the Church), then would it not be best to simply follow secular society on other matters (i.e., abortion, euthanasia, contraception, IVF, AI, etc.). After all, it is likely secular society is right on these other matters as well, and it will only be a matter of time before the Church really begins to see it.

So as you can see, I'm in a bit of a dilemma. I am beginning to feel that the Church is not as stable as I always thought. I don't really have all that much time to do theological research. I always looked to the Church to be my guide, and I figured Christ established the Church for that reason--for ordinary people like myself who do not have the time to research every historical and theological detail. But if the Church is just another fallible institution among others and is changing her views with the times, well that puts another spin on the whole thing. As you can see, I'm at a crossroads. It would be great if you can help me sift through this. What are your thoughts? I'd be interested to hear them.

Fr. C. TA: Hi :-) When a person refers to genuine, serious, long time, mature, committed relationships...and has just gotten through saying that sex is not a plaything, then perhaps what I should have said was that would certainly lead most folks to automatically know that this spells out marriage. But perhaps my own pastoral sense kicked in here when I said what I did. Yes, you are correct in the above comments you make re the Church teaching that sex is reserved for marriage. And if you open the door even a little bit, then, Pandora's Box. But is that a legitimate approach? Can you justify making broad, encompassing law, which makes for no exceptions? Is that loving? Just? Valid?

And in the context of my homily, in which I spoke of fornication, a specific term, is it really--I mean really fornication when:

1. elderly people who cannot marry because they would lose whatever small security they have, and yet have very genuine relationships which, I am sure, are good and holy before God.

2. young people, (not kids) who, in their lives, have been burnt badly by institutions and don't trust what society calls marriage...yet make firm and loving commitments to each other.

3. gay people--yes, gay people, who do not feel called to celibacy, fall in love, and live in loving, nurturing, committed relationships. Is a couple in a 30 year committed relationship "fornicating?"

4. engaged couples who may even struggle to wait till marriage, but fail repeatedly. Yet are already committed to each other, can you rank this in a general level of "fornication? And there are many other various situations which, if I was not so tired, I could probably list. Is it just pastoral gentleness with "sinners" that is called for? Or is there also a genuineness about so many areas which are not marriage yet which contain sex. As for your comment about changing attitudes. The Christian life is one lived in relationship with the Lord. Relationships are not static but dynamic. They grow, develop, and as they do, our perceptions of what is right and wrong also develop, and not just as individuals, but as institutions.

Philosophy was once called the handmaiden of theology. Certainly, it is still an important dimension. But Psychology is also a handmaiden of theology, and the input of knowledge into the human spectrum in the past 50-100 years far exceeds the sum total of human knowledge that preceded these few years. Theology has to constantly balance and re-address in the light of new understanding. If Rome itself did not believe this to be true, then why the spate of apology regarding past wrongs by the Church!

As for your comment about us being our own authorities, the Church gives us guidance to the best of her ability. In some areas she is very specific. In others, general. She challenges us to form our consciences in the light of the clearest understanding available. But humanity is also free, not in the flippant sense, but in the responsible sense of searching out truth. And, at times, the human conscience comes, with great struggle, to conclusions other than what the Church teaches. In the final analysis, we must stand before God as having been authentic to our understanding of truth. And if a person, after personal struggle to balance and weigh and compare what the Church offers, decides that he may not authentically follow the Church in a particular area, then he must not do so. Freedom is not anarchy. Salvation is not blind obedience. Christianity is relationship, which is dynamic rather than static. Anyway, I am exhausted. Hope your day recognizes the presence of God, and celebrates and gives praise.

Fr. C. TA.

Layman: Hi Fr. C. TA: I appreciate that you took the time to write. I have given your letter a great deal of thought, and I will disclose to you some of my thoughts on the matter.

I thought about your questions (about fornication), and they were very challenging. I was very surprised. It sounded to me as if you were saying that two people (whether they be young, old, or of the same sex) who genuinely love one another do not commit 'fornication' when they engage in the sex act. So, I concluded that fornication obviously means something other than sex outside of the bond of marriage. Perhaps 'fornicator' refers to those who use others for sexual gratification only to toss them aside afterward, like a used condom, so to speak. Obviously then, sex is not in itself a marital act, but an act that is best performed in the context of marriage, but need not be. If I read you correctly, unnecessary restrictions, in this regard, can be very unloving. I think most people in the world would agree with that, with the exception of a few macho types who care only for their own gratification.

I know a lot of young people who would rejoice at hearing this. And the gay community would also love you, Fr. C. TA.

I was also struck by what you wrote regarding the Church's growth and development. You wrote:

The Christian life is one lived in relationship with the Lord. Relationships are not static but dynamic. They grow, develop, and as they do, our perceptions of what is right and wrong also develop, and not just as individuals, but as institutions.

If what you say is true about sex, then it certainly seems that our attitudes are indeed changing. And what is becoming abundantly clear to me is that the Church is moving closer to the attitudes that the world has adopted for a while now.

What went through my mind was this: since the Church gives advice to the best of her ability, and since her advice depends in large part on recent developments in psychology, and since She apparently has nothing to offer over and above all that, then we are really on our own, aren't we? I mean, the world was right, the Church was wrong. The world is developing and growing faster than the Church. Why should I allow the Church to slow me down? After all, what is wrong with a loving couple who have had 3 kids and who cannot have another, choosing sterilization? Obviously the Church is a little slow coming around to this one. Or, how about In Vitro Fertilization? A couple cannot have kids. Is it loving to deprive them of an opportunity to have a child of their own? Obviously the Church is a little slow on this issue as well. Clearly the world is much farther ahead. Or, consider Artificial Insemination. A couple who cannot conceive, why not go to a sperm bank and allow a person with a high sperm count to donate and help a loving couple? It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Church is a little backwards when it comes to the moral life.

I was also struck by what you said regarding the Church. You said, "The Church gives us guidance to the best of her ability." You point out that in some areas she is very specific, while in other areas general. You say: "She challenges us to form our consciences in the light of the clearest understanding available."

What I find particularly interesting here is what seems to be a new understanding of the Church. For it is not as if the Holy Spirit or Christ himself guides us through the Church. No, rather it is the Church who gives us guidance to the best of her ability, and the Church has to constantly balance and re-address in the light of new understanding, especially psychology.

This is very different than the spirit of Vatican II, the documents of which are very clear about Christ speaking through the Church ("He who hears you hears me"), and the doctrine of the infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium.

So the Church is wrong again. I am free, not in a flippant sense, as you said, but free to form my conscience as I see fit, and not as the Church has always taught--which is to form my conscience according to the teaching of the Church, a Church that is clearly behind the times and slow moving. I'd be wiser to form my conscience according to the culture, since the Church will catch up to it eventually.

And what you said about relationship being dynamic, not static, seems convincing enough. If a teenage girl comes to me for an abortion, why should I unlovingly restrict her options and shove my values down her throat? She may not be where I am yet, and she may not be ready to be a mother. How unloving to refuse her a safe and legal abortion!

You also got me thinking about euthanasia. Would it be all that unloving to give a lethal injection (perhaps an overdose of morphine) to a humble old lady suffering from throat cancer and who is going to die by suffocation? How cruel it would be to stand there like a dogmatist and tell that woman that she has to bear her cross patiently.

And yet the Church condemns both abortion and euthanasia, in the documents of Vatican II, as unspeakable crimes against life. Again, is the Church so backward that she just cannot get her act together? Either the Church is so outmoded and upside down, or we are profoundly deceived, perhaps diabolically so.

The Church is obviously a very unloving institution, who pretends to be more than she is, and who is terribly behind the culture, a culture that is far more advanced in its ability to love than the Church has ever been.

Why should I obey the Church? Why should I even have any respect for the Church? And why should I go to Church? I began to ask these questions after I read your letter, Father C. TA.

But I also began to ask myself something else: "Why are you a priest?" What can you give me or anyone else that the world cannot give? Mind you, you have given me something: you have convinced me that the wisest and most prudent option might be to leave the Church. The world has certainly got its moral act together. And the world is becoming increasingly open to spirituality, not the dogmatic Catholic variety, but a spirituality that is more general and non-denominational. If more priests thought like you, then the world would most certainly love the Church. But then what would we make of Jesus' words: "If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you" (Jn 15, 18ff). Why would anybody want to be a priest? What can a priest offer the world that the world does not already have?

Layman
 

Fr. C. TA: Well, you certainly give me a stiff homework assignment. But this is good.
It helps me to sort things out as well. My first comment will be my Sunday homily from this Sunday. Of course, you
will have to read the Scriptures for today, unless you have gone to Mass,
which I hope you did.

Fr. C. TA.
 
Homily:

WE HAVE, FOR THE PAST FOUR WEEKS, BEEN LISTENING TO THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.

FIRST, WE SAW JESUS RECOGNIZING IN THE PREACHING OF JOHN THE BAPTIST HIS OWN CALL TO ACTION. JESUS RESPONDED TO THAT CALL BY BEING BAPTIZED IN THE JORDAN RIVER.

AT THE BAPTISM, HE HAD A GENUINE RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE. HEARING GOD SPEAKING OF HIM AS HIS SON, AND HE SAW THE DOVE, THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND THUS KNEW THAT HE WOULD HAVE GOD'S OWN STRENGTH TO CARRY OUT HIS UNIQUE VOCATION.

DURING THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, WE HEARD THE LORD CHOOSING THE MEN WHO WOULD MAKE UP HIS SELECT GROUP. NOW, IN TODAY'S READING, HE MAKES THE MOVE TO LAUNCH HIS CAMPAIGN. IF A MAN HAD A MESSAGE FROM GOD TO GIVE, THE NATURAL PLACE TO GIVE IT WOULD BE THE CHURCH WHERE GOD'S PEOPLE MET, AND JESUS DID EXACTLY THAT.

HE BEGAN HIS CAMPAIGN IN THE SYNAGOGUE. HE MADE HIS APPROACH IN THIS WAY BECAUSE THE SYNAGOGUE HAD CERTAIN BASIC DIFFERENCES FROM THE CHURCH AS WE KNOW IT TODAY. THE SYNAGOGUE WAS PRIMARILY A TEACHING INSTITUTION.  IT'S SERVICE CONSISTED IN ONLY THREE THINGS, PRAYER, THE READING OF GOD'S WORD, AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE WORD. THERE WAS NO MUSIC, NO SINGING, AND NO SACRIFICE.

ALL OF THOSE THINGS WERE DONE AT THE TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM. ALSO, THE SYNAGOGUE DID NOT HAVE A PROFESSIONAL MINISTER. RATHER, AN ADMINISTRATOR TOOK CARE OF IT'S AFFAIRS, AND, AT THE SERVICE, THAT ADMINISTRATOR WOULD CALL UPON ANY COMPETENT PERSON TO READ A SCRIPTURE, AND THEN GIVE AN EXPLANATION OF THOSE SCRIPTURES.

JESUS WAS EASILY ABLE, BECAUSE OF THIS SYSTEM, TO MAKE HIS PITCH. HE WAS KNOWN TO BE A MAN WITH A MESSAGE, AND FOR THAT REASON, EVERY COMMUNITY PROVIDED HIM WITH A PULPIT FROM WHICH TO INSTRUCT AND MAKE HIS APPEAL.

THE SCRIPTURES FROM WHICH JESUS READ THAT DAY IN THE SYNAGOGUE WOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM THE TORAH, THE FIRST 5 BOOKS OF WHAT WE NOW CALL THE OLD TESTAMENT.
(GENESIS, EXODUS, LEVITICUS, DEUTERONOMY, AND NUMBERS). FOR THE JEWS, THE MOST SACRED THING IN THE WORLD WAS THE SACRED LAW FOUND IN THOSE BOOKS, FOR THROUGH THE LAW WAS BASED THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. THIS LAW, WHICH INCLUDED THE 10 COMMANDMENTS, WAS UNDERSTOOD TO BE COMPLETELY DIVINE IN ITS ORIGIN, AND THEREFORE ABSOLUTELY HOLY AND COMPLETELY BINDING. IF THE TORAH WAS SO DIVINE, THEN IT MUST BE THE GUIDELINE FOR ALL FAITH AND LIFE, AND MUST CONTAIN EVERYTHING NECESSARY TO GUIDE AND DIRECT LIFE.

LOGICALLY, THEN, THE TORAH, THE LAW, MUST BE CAREFULLY STUDIED, AND IT’S UNDERSTANDING DEVELOPED. GRADUALLY, SCHOLARS, SCRIBES, WOULD EMERGE WHO WERE EXPERTS IN TORAH THE PROBLEM WAS THAT THEY TOOK THE GREAT LAWS OF THE COMMANDMENTS, AND BECAME SO LEGISLATIVE WITH RULES AND OBLIGATIONS FOR EVERYTHING, THAT RELIGION ENDED UP AS PURE LEGALISM. IT BECAME IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO REALLY LIVE OUT THEIR FAITH EXCEPT THE LEARNED ONES, WHO COULD SPEND ALL THEIR TIME MEMORIZING EXACTLY WHAT TO DO, AND WHEN TO DO IT.

BECAUSE FAITH CAME TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN A LEGALISTIC SENSE OF ADHERENCE TO THE LAW, EVERY DECISION BY A SCRIBE HAD TO BE BASED ON A DECISION OF ANOTHER TEACHER BEFORE HIM WHO BASED HIS DECISION...WHO BASED HIS DECISION.  HE NEVER GAVE AN INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT. JESUS, HOWEVER, CAME ALONG AND TAUGHT FROM PERSONAL AUTHORITY. WHEN HE SPOKE, HE DID SO DIRECTLY QUOTING THE SCRIPTURES. IT WAS AS IF HE NEEDED NO AUTHORITY BEYOND HIMSELF.  HE SPOKE WITH THE FINALITY OF THE VOICE OF GOD.

I FOUND THIS ALL VERY FASCINATING...(GROAN,, OBVIOUSLY!!) WHEN I WAS STUDYING FOR MY SOCIOLOGY DEGREE WAY BACK WHEN, I FOUND THAT THE BASIC LAWS OF SOCIETIES INITIALLY COME ABOUT BECAUSE OF A COMMON UNDERSTANDING ABOUT WHAT IS RIGHT AND WHAT IS WRONG. THIS CONSENSUS IS THEN PUT INTO LAW, AND SOCIETIES THEN USE THAT LAW AS A GIVEN TO BEGIN BUILDING AN UNDERSTANDING ABOUT ANYTHING RELATED WHICH COMES ALONG. LAW, THEN, IS AT THE BASE OF WHAT PEOPLE BELIEVE. WE DO NOT STRIVE TO FULFILL THE LAW, BELIEVING THAT, BY DOING SO, WE HAVE THEREFORE REACHED THE IDEAL.

RATHER, WE OBEY THE LAW AS THE WAY TO BEGIN BUILDING TOWARDS THE IDEAL. (HEAVY! HUH) THE LAW PROVIDES A NECESSARY FOUNDATION, BUT IT IS NOT ITSELF THE IDEAL.

I BELIEVE THAT IS HOW JESUS SAW IT TOO. JESUS DID NOT QUOTE THE LAW AS THE SCRIBES DID. HE HAD GROWN FAR BEYOND THAT POINT. THE LAW THAT GOD HAD INTENDED...THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, WAS ALREADY PART OF HIM. HE UNDERSTOOD THE FOUNDATION, AND HE WAS CONFIDENT ABOUT THE STABILITY OF THAT FOUNDATION.

HE WAS INTERESTED NOW, NOT IN CONTINUING TO POINT TO THE FOUNDATION,AS THE SCRIBES WERE DOING, AND STAYING IN A LEGALISTIC RUT AS A RESULT, BUT IN BUILDING UPWARDS
TOWARD THE IDEAL... BECAUSE HE SAW THE IDEAL AS THE REASON FOR THE FOUNDATION
OF LAW IN THE FIRST PLACE. AND SO HE COULD SAY: HEY FOLKS! LOVE GOD ABOVE ALL THINGS, AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YORUSELVES. ON THIS THE WHOLE LAW IS BASED"!

FURTHER, JESUS NOT ONLY POINTED TOWARDS THE IDEAL. HE WAS THE IDEAL.  AS HE POINTED TO GOD, HE POINTED NECESSARILY TO HIMSELF.

HOW CAN WE TRANSLATE THAT TODAY? THE CHURCH IS CHRIST PRESENT ON EARTH.
MANY OF US, HOWEVER, FAIL TO SEE THE LORD IN THE CHURCH. WE MAY SEE ONLY LAWS...THE HAVE TO'S. GET TO MASS. PERHAPS WE GO TO CONFESSION. FOLLOW THE 10 COMMANDMENTS.
DO THIS , DO THAT. WE MAY WONDER AT TIMES IF THE CHURCH IS JUST THE SCRIBES REINCARNATED. WHY DO WE NEED ALL THIS STRUCTURE? WHY NOT GO OUT AND EXPERIENCE JESUS IN NATURE..OR AT LEAST IN SOME LESS STRUCTURED WAY? AND IF WE THINK THAT WAY, WE MAY TEND TO IGNORE THE CHURCH. WE MAY WALK AWAY FROM IT ALTOGETHER!

I ALWAYS FIND IT FASCINATING, THOUGH, THAT WHEN BILLY GRAHAM PREACHED ONE OF HIS CRUSADES, AFTER ALL THE HUGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE ACCEPTED CHRIST, HE ALWAYS ENCOURAGED THEM TO GET INVOLVED WITH THEIR CHURCH...OR SEEK ONE OUT IF THEY WERE NOT RAISED IN ONE. HE DID THAT BECAUSE HE KNEW THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD MADE A COMMITMENT, THE DROPOUT RATE WOULD BE ENORMOUS BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY STRUCTURE OR ORGANIZATION TO HELP THEM NOURISH AND SUPPORT THEIR SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE.

WHEN ORGANIZATION IS ABSENT, THEN THERE ARE NO MATURE DEVELOPED TEACHINGS,
NO TRAINED PERSONNEL TO COUNSEL, NO AUTHORITY TO SETTLE PROBLEMS OF DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE FOR THEIR LIVES. THERE IS NO STRUCTURED LITURGY TO PROVIDE ONGOING PRAYER AND WORSHIP. AND THERE IS NO SUPPORTIVE CHRISTIAN ASSEMBLY WITH WHOM TO BOND AND FROM WHOM TO RECEIVE SPIRITUAL AND EMOTIONAL NOURISHMENT. INSTEAD, CHRISTIAN LIFE IS SEEN TOO EXCLUSIVELY AS AN EXPERIENCE AND AN EVENT IN THEIR LIVES THAT HAS NO FOLLOW UP, NO SUPPORT. THE RESULT IS THAT MANY PEOPLE WHO CONVERT TO THE LORD, WHO UNDERGO A REAL CHANGE IN THEIR LIVES, AND WHO ARE TEMPORARILY COMMITTED TO THE GOSPEL,....FIND THEMSELVES BACK WHERE THEY STARTED..LIVING AS NONBELIEVERS...PERHAPS AGAIN IMMERSED IN THE SAME PROBLEMS, THE SAME DISORDERED LIVING AS WHEN THEY STARTED.

A CHURCHLESS CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT THE STRUCTURES OF MINISTRY, TEACHING AND WORSHIP CANNOT KEEP PEOPLE GOING. THE ROLE OF PROPHET MUST NOT ONLY NAG THE CHURCH, IT MUST REMAIN, EVEN IF UNEASILY, AS I DO, AS PART OF THE CHURCH.

THERE MUST ALWAYS BE A BALANCE. TOO MUCH STRUCTURE CAN KILL, AS WITH THE SCRIBES. BUT TOO LITTLE STRUCTURE CAN ALSO MEAN DEATH. THE CHURCH HAS, AS HER WHOLE PURPOSE, TO BASE US IN THE LAW, AND TO POINT US PAST THE LAW TO OUR IDEAL, OUR GOAL, AND THAT GOAL IS THE LORD JESUS! SO WHEN YOU LISTEN TO THE CHURCH, STRUGGLE TO LEARN TO HEAR THE LORD RATHER THAN JUST THE STRUCTURE, STRAIN TO HEAR THE ONE WHO SPEAKS WITH AUTHORITY. JESUS! WHEN WE HEAR THE VOICE OF THE LORD, THEN WE TOO WILL HAVE MOVED PAST THE LEGALISM OF THE SCRIBES.

WE WON'T GET HUNG UP OVER THE "LAW" BECAUSE WE, AS DID JESUS, WILL HAVE INTEGRATED
THE BASICS, THE REAL LAW INTO OUR LIVES AND ARE NOW READY TO SEEK THE IDEAL.

WE PRAY TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE WILL BE READY TO ASK THE LORD TO DRIVE OUT ANY EVIL THAT INFESTS US, AND, ASK, INSTEAD, AS JESUS DID AT HIS OWN BAPTISM, FOR THE FATHER TO FILL US WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT.

LET US PRAY FOR THAT GRACE.
 
Layman: Fr. C. TA:

I've been reading your homily. I have to say that I am a little confused. In your first letter, you come across as a first rate liberal. Here, you are clearly more on the "solid" side, as they say. I am confused because there seems to be two different notions of the Church presented here.

I understand what you are saying about needing structure. But you wrote the following:

WHEN ORGANIZATION IS ABSENT, THEN THERE ARE NO MATURE DEVELOPED TEACHINGS, NO TRAINED PERSONNEL TO COUNSEL, NO AUTHORITY TO SETTLE PROBLEMS OF DOCTRINE AND DISCIPLINE FOR THEIR LIVES. THERE IS NO STRUCTURED LITURGY TO PROVIDE ONGOING PRAYER AND WORSHIP.

But if what you said in your previous letter is true, then what you are saying here must be false. For there are no mature developed teachings in the Church anyway, as you have shown. Perhaps there are trained personnel to counsel, but I can always get that anywhere, from a good psychologist, for instance. As for "No authority to settle problems of doctrine", you have shown very clearly that the Church does not have this authority: for she guides us to the best of her ability, and has been wrong and continues to be wrong on many moral issues, like sex, and more than likely abortion, euthanasia, Artificial Insemination, IVF, and probably a host of other issues. The Church progresses and develops along with society and our knowledge of psychology. She has no more authority than I do, as you have preached before.

You also wrote the following:

INSTEAD, CHRISTIAN LIFE IS SEEN TOO EXCLUSIVELY AS AN EXPERIENCE AND AN EVENT
IN THEIR LIVES THAT HAS NO FOLLOW UP, NO SUPPORT. THE RESULT IS THAT MANY PEOPLE
WHO CONVERT TO THE LORD, WHO UNDERGO A REAL CHANGE IN THEIR LIVES, AND WHO ARE TEMPORARILY COMMITTED TO THE GOSPEL,....FIND THEMSELVES BACK WHERE THEY STARTED..LIVING AS NONBELIEVERS...PERHAPS AGAIN IMMERSED IN THE SAME PROBLEMS, THE SAME DISORDERED LIVING AS WHEN THEY STARTED.

A CHURCHLESS CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT THE STRUCTURES OF MINISTRY, TEACHING AND WORSHIP CANNOT KEEP PEOPLE GOING. THE ROLE OF PROPHET MUST NOT ONLY NAG THE CHURCH, IT MUST REMAIN, EVEN IF UNEASILY, AS I DO, AS PART OF THE CHURCH.

THERE MUST ALWAYS BE A BALANCE. TOO MUCH STRUCTURE CAN KILL, AS WITH THE SCRIBES. BUT TOO LITTLE STRUCTURE CAN ALSO MEAN DEATH.

What do you mean by "the same disordered living"? When I hear the word "disorder", I always associate that with the term "immoral". Does the Church really have the authority to tell me that I am living a disordered life? According to you, no more than anybody else. And do I really need structure? I can still believe in the Lord without belonging to a Church that is telling me I cannot do this, I must do that, while her teachings are always discovered later to be wrong (especially in the area of sexuality, which is a very important area). I mean, if contraception is really okay, then the Church is doing married couples a major disservice. They are going to owe the world one enormous apology if there is nothing intrinsically wrong with contraception, for instance. But then again, if the Church is right, how could that be? How could a bunch of celibates in Rome have figured out that contraceptive birth control is morally "disordered"? It would seem to imply that the Church is something more than a mere human authority--which brings me to the next point that you made. It would have to mean that the authority of the Church is the authority of Christ, as you seem to imply in your homily. That is where I am confused. I understand your homily, especially the part about eventually transcending law. But why should I use the "law" as a stepping stone when the law (the formulated moral teaching of the Church) is wrong or shaky? Why not by-pass all those silly moral teachings and proceed to "love the Lord and neighbor" as ourselves without getting all tangled in Church doctrines some of which are manifestly wrong and outdated?

You said:

IT WAS AS IF HE NEEDED NO AUTHORITY BEYOND HIMSELF..HE SPOKE WITH THE FINALITY OF THE VOICE OF GOD.  HE SAW THE IDEAL:...LOVE GOD ABOVE ALL THINGS, AND YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YORUSELVES. ON THIS THE WHOLE LAW IS BASED"! FURTHER, JESUS NOT ONLY POINTED
TOWARDS THE IDEAL. HE WAS THE IDEAL. AS HE POINTED TO GOD, HE POINTED NECESSARILY TO HIMSELF. HOW CAN WE TRANSLATE THAT TODAY? THE CHURCH IS CHRIST PRESENT ON EARTH. MANY OF US, HOWEVER, FAIL TO SEE THE LORD IN THE CHURCH.

Again, I am confused. In your previous letter you said, I quote: "The Church gives us guidance to the best of her ability. In some areas she is very specific. In others, general. She challenges us to form our consciences in the light of the clearest understanding available". But now you say "The Church is Christ present on earth". And prior to that you said that "Christ needed no authority beyond himself...He spoke with the finality of the voice of God...He was the ideal,...he is God." If your first letter was correct, then what you say in your homily is simply wrong. But if what you say in your homily is correct, then you left out an awful lot in your first letter. It would mean that the Church does not simply give guidance to the best of her ability. Rather, Jesus Christ gives us the guidance of God, through the Church (since the Church is Christ present on earth). You also say that many fail to see the Lord in the Church. In light of your first letter, it seems quite likely that you Father, failed to see the Lord in the Church.

I didn't sense a great deal of truth in your first letter, I'm sorry to say, Father. Deep down, I knew that I could easily deceive myself and believe it. I began to wonder: if two young people, suspicious of marriage as you say, truly love each other, but would rather not marry because of their suspicions or their hurts, then they obviously don't love each other enough; for their love does not have what it takes to carry them beyond their difficulty. Why should they engage in an act that can generate a new life, if they are unwilling to commit themselves to each other by a public vow? What right do I have to engage in sexual intercourse with another woman if I am not willing to publicly commit myself to her and the child that might be generated as a result of my action? If I can engage in sex while refusing to establish a public and legally recognized conjugal bond, all in the name of some bad experience with "institutions" and some adolescent lack of trust in what society calls marriage, then I am an unloving person plain and simple--selfish, in other words--, and I would hope that someone would have the guts to point that out to me and take the blinders off my sentimental eyes.

I thought about what you said regarding homosexual actions. Is it really a loving thing for a male person to have intercourse with a man, or some other sex act? I was always taught that sacrifice is the language of love. Is love really a question of making somebody experience the pleasure of orgasm? Love, I was taught, is a willing for another what is good. But what kind of good? Is love a question of feeling good? Is love willing that another experience sensible goods? If so, then it would seem that a man should be able to have a sexual relationship with a young boy, or anybody for that matter. As long as one's intentions are good and one is not out to use them and abuse them, any kind of sex should be morally okay. But I feel there is something terribly wrong with this thinking. How does having an orgasm promote the fullness of my being? And how does it express my love for another? We can readily see how heterosexual sex in marriage "expresses" committed marital love, because in the sex act the two people are becoming one flesh, one body, and that is the essence of marriage: "the two shall be one flesh". The sex act in this case really is a physical expression or "word" of their one flesh union. But two men engaging in intercourse? They are mimicking one flesh union, but in no way do they actually become one flesh, one body. Their sexual act would not in any way foster the good of marriage, because there is no one flesh union. So what are they doing? They are mutually masturbating one another. I'm not sure if that is really so loving. Perhaps it is a kind act, in as much as kindness seeks to relieve suffering and make the other person feel good. But I have to think that love is more than kindness.

From what I gather in your homily, the Church is not really guiding us to the best of her ability, rather, Christ is guiding us with the authority of the Father--through imperfect instruments, of course.  With that in mind, it seems that we can reasonably trust the Church.  If the Church is merely a human institution, then it would be foolish to trust it. Why trust the Church anymore than Congress? But if the Church is Christ present, then I'd better stay in the Church and listen to her words and discern Christ therein, as you put it. And instead of measuring Church teaching against the yardstick of modern psychology, perhaps it would be wiser of me to measure the findings of modern psychology against the teachings of Christ, formulated through the Church in a fresh way in each new era. After all, the Church is Christ's Mystical Body.

Perhaps I'd better think twice before performing a vasectomy on somebody, or prescribing birth control pills.

Nevertheless, this has been an invigorating dialogue. You have given me food for thought, Fr. C. TA.

Sincerely Yours,
Layman

Fr. C. TA: (short letter sent just before the big one): Relationship relationship relationship. Faith is relationship. Love is relationship. Relationship is not static, nor does it know all the answers.

But if the relationship is real, then it is dynamic and open to change and growth, and the Spirit.  Christ is present in the Church, but he doesn't send emails. We have to discover him, sort him out, seek the pearl in the field, one shovel full at a time.

But my next letter which you should have gotten by now is sure to stir some more mud. And that is good. Faith needs to get down in the mud of life.  That is where the pearls are. But very little is clean, so watch out. You just might get your hands dirty!

Fr. C. TA.

Fr. C. TA: Hi : ) Well, what a letter you have written...whether to take at face value, or tongue in cheek, or just telling me that I am full of bullshit. Well, whatever! Obviously, if you believe that you have a right to judge my entire spectrum of belief out of one sermon and one tired response, then I guess you will. Nothing I can do about that. Again, whatever. I have real doubts that whatever I say will really change your attitudes about anything. But I will make somewhat of a response.

I would start off by saying that I don't consider the Church to be just one of a number of different voices in the world. She comes from a particular understanding of life and of God that is not necessarily shared by other voices.

And I do feel that Christ speaks through her. It is just that there are different levels of understanding what kind of weight to put on her words.  I have no problem at all with the deepest understandings of the doctrines.  As for other issues, I have to weigh them in the light of history and see if they really portray the Sensus Fidelum (who knows if that is the correct spelling. I never gave a damn about Latin), the Sense of the Faith that comes to us across the centuries.

Certainly something that I believe in very strongly, and which the Church championed in good times and in bad, is a respect for life. This sense of the faith is becoming ever more clarified as we begin to speak out, rightly, against capital punishment. All life, not just life which we somehow qualify as good or bad people, is sacred. If life itself is not sacred, then nothing within life can really be sacred, which would really open up the "whatever, what the hell" attitude which I strictly oppose as against the will of God.

But here is where I butt heads so often myself with the teachings of the Church. How does one develop a pastoral sense (or in your case, a gentleness and empathy with patients) which sees the particular instance rather than saying: "NO, we cannot acknowledge that possibility because look at the possible ramifications!" One such issue you have raised is sex outside of marriage. The Church at this point in history is still seeming to try to base everything on a Thomistic philosophy mode. If She says that there is an instance where sex outside marriage is permissible, then that takes an action which also happens to be procreative, and, ergo, procreation does not necessarily reside within marriage. Since the Church must also safeguard society, and the sanctity of marriage, she immediately says, "NO."

Well, are we at a point where we also need to respect those who don't fall into that category and yet are also sexual beings? Is there really a philosophy which so completely defines life that we can actually sin against others who don't fall into those categories, and call it just? Here, we enter into a field for which there are no immediate answers. The Church is indeed divine AND human. How does one respect and always reverence the divine principles within particular cultures and individual lives? The value of the Church is priceless in the sense that it confronts culture and forces it to struggle with those issues against the divine principles.

Without it, there would be no such confrontation, only the anarchy of individuals pushing their own thing and who could be ignored.  Again, let's look at the sexuality issue as a take off. You made a particular point of Homosexuality, which, up to the time of the middle ages seems not to have been uniformly considered by the Church. In fact some research, from well respected historians, have indicated that the Church even blessed gay unions, but of course, today's Church denies that... But, at least with Thomas Aquinas, etc., the Church would develop the sense of who we are as human beings and say that it is part of our intrinsic nature to be male or female, with the sense of procreation, etc., being the divinely appointed outcome of all that. Homosexuality as such was not understood as a reality in itself and would therefore be seen as a freely chosen deviant behaviour which, balanced against the nut screwed on the bolt, would be evil personified. The word "faggot" would come from the faggots of wood which burned these terrible sinners to death.

Well, we have come a long way, with the Catechism now defining the condition as not one freely chosen, and that gays be treated with respect as fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord, but still condemning sexual acts because these are outside marriage, etc., and marriage is only between the opposite sexes. But, ahah, the teaching has changed drastically as a result of a deeper understanding of the issue.

Another way of looking at this, though, is that, using the divine mandate of life being sacred, the dialog is in process. And the dialog is within the relationship we have with Christ. We will not see the end of the dialog within our lifetime. But when you look at cultures where the Church is not an influence, you see society/culture, coming to vastly different approaches.  The execution of gays would still be a reality in other parts of the world.  And what about Europe? Well, the people may not be going to church much, but the Church is still very much of a moral force to be in the dialog and the culture itself has been molded by the Church.

One thing you need to recognize in my own comments is through a rereading of that sermon I sent. I am one of the prophets, in a way, who coexist uneasily with the lawmakers. Together, we make up the Church. Together, sometimes in anger, always in tension, we move the Church forward in the relationship. If the Church were all prophet, and no one based in law...tradition...etc...we would be in terrible shape. But of course, we cannot swing the other way to total law, either. Rigidity, and insensitivity, self righteousness and arrogance are the result of that approach.

And so you cannot take what I say as totally indicative of where the Church is, but you cannot discount me either. I do believe the Holy Spirit is alive and well in the Church. But the Spirit does not operate in a ZAP mode. It is always through the People of God, struggling to continually redefine the ancient principles, the sense of God in our midst, in the light of continually unfolding new dynamics of culture, of new awareness brought on by scientific discovery. It is very much the sense of Vatican II that the Church is not just a "top down" pyramid which gives out the sense of God to the faithful. All of us have a responsibility to feed into the Body. Change comes from the bottom, not the top. Not to face up to our own vocations, to raise questions, to challenge, to uphold, to nourish, would be a grave sin against our baptism. So I don't go along with your statement "So the Church is wrong." That is far too simplistic. We are not talking about some kind of structure which somehow holds us in line. The People of God ARE the Church. It is the struggle today between the implications of this reality vs those who want the old, pre Vatican II concept of all answers, no doubt, tell me what to do so I don't make a mistake, that is the real challenge for us. Unlicensed freedom is not the answer. But neither is the execution of the prophets! (troublemakers like me). Ongoing dialog, struggling to see where the Spirit wants to lead us...that is the search.

All the questions, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, tubal etc., all need to seek the answers from that ultimate that life is sacred. But of course, that statement only makes sense if one is in relationship with a sense of the divine. If you are not, then you won't understand what I mean. If you are, especially at your level, then I don't need to explain myself.

So much for today.
Fr. C. TA.

Layman: Hi Fr. C. TA: I have given your letter a lot of thought, and I thought the best way to share my thoughts would be to comment one by one on what you wrote.

You said:

Well, what a letter you have written...whether to take at face value, or tongue in cheek, or just telling me that I am full of bullshit. Well, whatever! Obviously, if you believe that you have a right to judge my entire spectrum of belief out of one sermon and one tired response, then I guess you will. Nothing I can do about that. Again, whatever. I have real doubts that whatever I say will really change your attitudes about anything.

Don't underestimate the power of your words. You easily have the power to knock somebody off the straight and narrow. Consider the letter you sent when you were tired. Imagine if you were to preach a sermon when you were as tired. Somebody could walk out of Church and make a decision (a wrong one) all on the basis of your words that are so easily misunderstood. After all, how many people have a background in theology? Not many. And how many people put their trust in you? Many.

You wrote:

But I will make somewhat of a response. I would start off by saying that I don't consider the Church to be just one of a number of different voices in the world. She comes from a particular understanding of life and of God that is not necessarily shared by other voices.

I was struck by the line: "she comes from a particular understanding of life and of God..." Doesn't she come from the pierced side of the crucified? Isn't she born of Christ himself? Isn't her understanding given to her from the Holy Spirit? "Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures...And behold I am sending the promise of my Father upon you" (Lk 24, 45-50. Cf. Jn 14, 17; 16, 8-15). Doesn't she understand herself in the Holy Spirit, who is the soul of the Church?

You also said:

And I do feel that Christ speaks through her. It is just that there are different levels of understanding what kind of weight to put on her words.

Yes, and who has the right understanding? What does the teaching Magisterium say regarding the kind of understanding we must have of her words?

You wrote:

I have no problem at all with the deepest understandings of the doctrines. As for other issues, I have to weigh them in the light of history and see if they really portray the Sensus Fidelum.

Isn't that the job of the Magisterium, to interpret the sensus fidelium? You interpret the sensus fidelium one way, a Church historian interprets it another way, a theologian another, a Catholic Philosopher another. Who is right, especially when there is so much conflict? It is the Church who pronounces the final word, is it not? In the Declaration in Defense of the Catholic Doctrine on the Church Against Certain Erros of the Present Day (1973), the CDF writes: "Thus, however much the Sacred Magisterium avails itself of the contemplation, life and study of the faithful, its office is not reduced merely to ratifying the assent already expressed by the latter; indeed, in the interpretation and explanation of the written or transmitted Word of God, the Magisterium can anticipate or demand their assent."

This teaching is not new by any means. As St. Irenaeus wrote in the 2nd century: "Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; we do this, I say, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere."

You also wrote (concerning life):

Certainly something that I believe in very strongly, and which the Church championed in good times and in bad, is a respect for life.

You believe in it very strongly, but other Catholics do not. Your understanding here just happens to agree with the Magisterium. I do like your reasoning here: "if life isn't sacred, then nothing within life can be sacred." But some people draw their own line. Some say: "fine, abortion is wrong, but contraception is not." And yet, those thinkers who defend the Church's teaching on contraception employ the very same reasoning, namely, the sacredness of life. It has been shown that contraception involves a preventing of a possible person (not an actual person: that would amount to homicide) from becoming an actuality. It involves the projection of a possible life and the subsequent taking of steps to prevent that possible life from becoming an actually existing human life. Such an act is not homicide, but what the two have in common is a contra-life intent. It is this contra-life intent that makes homicide morally wrong (for homicide attacks life, which is basically good). It is this contra-life intent that also makes contraception morally wrong (potential life is still a good that the will can bear upon and relate to in a negative or a positive way). And yet we have priests who are weak on contraception, not to mention some laity-- and who dissent from Church teaching on this. As you can see, they are choosing where to draw the line. But the Magisterium has chosen another line. At the same time, some other group, like Nuns for Choice, have drawn an altogether different line (1^st trimester abortion, for instance). All of them claim to be prophets. Who is right? How are we to avoid this chaos that you speak of?

You continue:

But here is where I butt heads so often myself with the teachings of the Church. How does one develop a pastoral sense (or in your case, a gentleness and empathy with patients) which sees the particular instance rather than saying: "NO, we cannot acknowledge that possibility because look at the possible ramifications!" One such issue you have raised is sex outside of marriage. The Church at this point in history is still seeming to try to base everything on a Thomistic philosophy mode.

No, the Church does not base its reasons on Thomistic philosophy. Rather, St. Thomas based what he said on Church teaching. Also, Pope John Paul II is not a Thomist, but rather a phenomenological/personalist. If you read his writings on sex and responsibility and the conjugal meaning of the sex act, they are anything but Thomistic. The church bases its teachings on Christ, not a theologian of the Church or a school of thought.

How does one develop a pastoral sense? This is a good question. Does one become more pastoral by abandoning the truth and making exceptions to the principles? If abortion is wrong, it is wrong. I don't become more pastoral by making an exception. I become more pastoral by my ability to establish a rapport with the person I am dealing with, by reverencing this person, by leading her to Jesus (not with theology, but empowered with the gifts of the Spirit). It is here that I have to bring to life the teaching of the Church, which exists for this person's good and her salvation. Church teaching as applied to a particular person in a particular situation will not damage him or her, or lead her down the garden path, as they say. No, it is the pastor that will do that by his insensitivity. But there is a distinction between dogmatism and dogma. The troubled person who comes to me needs not cold teaching (teaching is not cold, rather persons are cold), but a person who can bring the person of Jesus to bear upon a situation. But some people get confused by this, and with foolish logic conclude that this person before me does not need the truth (the teaching/the doctrine). The teaching exists to serve persons. Knowledge exists to serve love, which is directed towards persons. The pastor is one who brings the two thousand-year-old wisdom of the Church to life and he makes it relevant to the particular situation in which this person finds himself. But he cannot do this by abandoning Church teaching. Abandoning the teaching or making exceptions is not pastoral. It is a cop out, a failure to pastor under the guise of being sensitive and caring. It is also an instance of arrogance: the pastor believes that he sees farther and has more insight than the Church, which has had 2000 years of experience behind her. St. Irenaeus also speaks of this in the year 140 AD: "But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, and which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth" (Adv. Haer., 3:2).

You also write:

If She says that there is an instance where sex outside marriage is permissible, then that takes an action which also happens to be procreative, and, ergo, procreation does not necessarily reside within marriage. Since the Church must also safeguard society, and the sanctity of marriage, she immediately says, "NO."

But this does not make sense if you think about it. If there is indeed a situation in which sex outside of marriage is permissible, then speaking the truth on this is needed. Why would it prove to be unsafe for society and the sanctity of marriage? The truth is not unsafe. There are situations in which euthanasia is perfectly justified, and the Church explicitly says so (passive euthanasia under extraordinary treatment). This is a real exception. The Church has not decided to hide this in the fear that such a teaching will be misunderstood and prove dangerous.

If there is a situation in which it is permissible, then the sex act need not always be open to procreation or need not be an expression of married love. In that case we will need to find the real criterion that determines the integrity of the sex act. It would follow that the criterion of the unitive and procreative goods was clearly not it. Principles do not allow of exceptions. Only rules allow of exceptions. If I have a rule that no one may leave my classroom during an exam to go to the bathroom, I can make an exception to the rule if I see that this girl is having her period, or this boy has a bleeding nose, or this person is going to pee his pants, etc. Exceptions are reasonable. For rules are based on certain principles. The rules themselves are not principles. A principle is different. We cannot make an exception on a principle. For instance, take the principle of fairness: "One should not, on the basis of different feelings towards different persons, willingly proceed with a preference towards anyone unless that preference is required by basic human goods themselves". The principle is absolute. No one may give me permission to proceed with a preference not grounded on basic human goods, but only prejudice. No. That would be unloving, unethical, and unjustifiable (for even the word "unjustifiable" includes the word "justice". One cannot justify injustice).

The situation of passive euthanasia under extraordinary treatment is not an exception of the principle. Removing a seriously burdensome treatment does not involve the intention to snuff out human life. Therefore, the principle that human life be revered is not violated.

But the precept against non-marital sex is not a rule. Engaging in non-marital sex violates certain moral principles. If there is a situation in which non-marital sex does not violate those principles (as there is in euthanasia), then one may have sex in such a situation. But there is no such situation. Why? Because the sex act is, in its very nature, a conjugal act. The two actually become one flesh in the act of sexual union, and they become reproductively one organism. The goodness of the sex act, and its sacredness, is nothing other than the goodness and sacredness of marriage. People fail to understand this because they have the two (sex and marriage) separated in their minds, and the two have been separated for such a long time now thanks to thirty years of contraception. Two people of the same sex cannot become reproductively and humanly one organism, that is, one body. It is an impossibility. So it is impossible for a homosexual act to have any human and moral goodness whatsoever. This does not mean that the two homosexuals cannot be loving and have good motives. Indeed they can. But motive does not make an action morally good. If it did, then anything can be justified, even terrorism, abortion, and active euthanasia.

You say that we are sexual beings. Yes, but so is my cat. So are plants. But I am more than a sexual being. I am a human kind of being. I am a being of reason and will. Being a sexual being does not mean that I am entitled to experience an orgasm. It means that I can father a child and become one body with a woman. To be a human being means to be a moral agent. I can know my destiny and choose it. I can also miss it. The distinguishing characteristic of the human person is not "sexuality", but reason and will, or knowledge and love (not sexual love, but divine love: I can love with the heart of Christ).

Well, are we at a point where we also need to respect those who don't fall into that category and yet are also sexual beings? Is there really a philosophy which so completely defines life that we can actually sin against others who don't fall into those categories, and call it just?

No, we can't sin against anybody and call it just. We must always reverence the human person. We must always love the sinner and hate the sin, as the saying goes. Love the person, condemn the immoral action. We must not confuse the two. In the area of homosexuality, we have two extremes in our society, which involve a confusion. On the one hand we have the macho types who vow to beat up the homosexual as a service to mankind. Here there is a confusion between the person, who is good and redeemed by Christ, and the homosexual action, which is not ordered towards the goods that define the sex act. Moreover, the macho type is one who is himself often sexually promiscuous. What he fails to understand is that homosexual actions are not in a special category. The reasons why homosexual actions are wrong are the very same reasons why pre-marital sex (heterosexual) is wrong. The macho man employs a double standard.

The other extreme comes from the liberalism of Hollywood. We must love the person. It is then concluded, with faulty logic, that we must accept his homosexual orientation as an orientation towards a good. Again, a failure to make a distinction. The person is good, but that does not mean that his actions are good, even if they are rooted in an orientation that is not chosen. If that were the case, then nothing would be immoral, or next to nothing.

You say:

Here, we enter into a field for which there are no immediate answers. The Church is indeed divine AND human. How does one respect and always reverence the divine principles within particular cultures and individual lives? The value of the Church is priceless in the sense that it confronts culture and forces it to struggle with those issues against the divine principles. Without it, there would be no such confrontation, only the anarchy of individuals pushing their own thing and who could be ignored.

Which is why priests should be very careful not to sow seeds of dissent. You describe well the culture in which we live. But if you can dissent from Church teaching on this or that, then why can't I dissent from you on this and that? Sooner or later, we have that chaos again, that anarchy, in which everybody is doing what they judge to be the best for them.

And yet, I am not guided by the Holy Spirit. I am a member of the Church. We are not Church, but members of the Church, Christ's Mystical Body, and the Church as a whole is guided by the Holy Spirit. The Church as a whole has the charism of infallibility, just as the human person as a whole has the potentiality to imagine something, or the power to hear, or the power to see. But just as these powers that belong to the whole person need an organ by which they can be realized, so too does the Church need an organ to exercise that charism of infallibility that belongs to the Church as a whole. The Magisterium is that organ, according to the Church's self-understanding. I am not the Magisterium. A priest is not an official teacher of the Church. The bishops in union with the Holy Father are the official teachers of the Church. To the degree that I insert myself into the Mystical Body, which is the Church, I will be guided by the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ's Mystical Body, the Church. Christian life is ecclesial, not individualistic--as you well know. But a small seed of dissent can quickly lead to Christian individualism. Just look what happened to Anglicanism. Again, if you can dissent from the Magisterium, then who is going to tell me that I cannot dissent from you, and so on and so forth?

You write:

Again, lets look at the sexuality issue as a take off. You made a particular point of Homosexuality, which, up to the time of the middle ages seems not to have been uniformly considered by the Church. In fact some research, from well respected historians, have indicated that the Church even blessed gay unions, but of course, today's Church denies that...

It is not surprising that the Church denies that. Just like the claim a few years back that there was female pope. Historians who write such things are almost guaranteed a publisher, sales and big profits. For the general public love to hear such things, regardless of whether or not they are true.

You also wrote:

But, at least with Thomas Aquinas, etc., the Church would develop the sense of who we are as human beings and say that it is part of our intrinsic nature to be male or female, with the sense of procreation, etc.. being the divinely appointed outcome of all that. Homosexuality as such was not understood as a reality in itself, and would therefore be seen as a freely chosen deviant behaviour which, balanced against the nut screwed on the bolt, would be evil personified. The word "faggot" would come from the faggots of wood which burned these terrible sinners to death.

Did the magisterium teach this, or was this just assumed on the part of the people? And consider this: imagine a priest taking it upon himself to interpret the sensus fidelium on this issue, and after his investigation, recommends burning at the stake, because most people (80%) think that the homosexual orientation is chosen. From our vantage point we can readily see how faulty is such theology. And yet there are priests today who employ that very same reasoning with contraception (80% of Catholics believe its okay. Therefore, it is okay, in accordance with the sensus fidelium).

You say:

Well, we have come a long way, with the Catechism now defining the condition as not one freely chosen, and that gays be treated with respect as fellow brothers and sisters in the Lord, but still condemning sexual acts...because these are outside marriage...etc..and marriage is only between the opposite sexes. But, ahah, the teaching has changed drastically as a result of a deeper understanding of the issue.

But the teaching has not changed at all. Attitudes have changed. Show me where the Church officially taught at one time that the homosexual orientation is a chosen condition.

You also say:

Another way of looking at this, though, is that, using the divine mandate of life being sacred, the dialog is in process.

What dialogue are you referring to? With whom are we in dialogue? The gay community is not dialoguing with the Church. They are yelling and asserting and threatening, not dialoging. Consider what happened in New York in front of St. Patrick's Cathedral a few years ago.

And the dialog is within the relationship we have with Christ. We will not see the end of the dialog within our lifetime.

But Father C, you can use this line of reasoning to justify anything. I can call myself a prophet and maintain the following: "the dialogue with regard to abortion is still in process and within the relationship we have with Christ. The dialogue will not end in our lifetime. So, when a girl comes to me and is pregnant, I think that the Church's teaching on this is rather strict, but generally true--only generally. Abortion as a birth control, of course that is wrong. Abortion at 8 months, of course that is wrong. But an abortion for a 15-year-old girl, who is 11 weeks pregnant, who is not too bright? I think it is unreasonable to make her go through with the pregnancy (of course I don't really believe that, I'm just making a point). If anyone confronts me on this with Church teaching or moral principles, I can just reply that the dialog is in process and we cannot pretend to have final answers to these questions."

I can do this with any moral issue. I can do this with the doctrine of the Real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as well. In fact, people have done it.

My relationship with Christ is indeed dynamic, not static. You are right. But that has no bearing upon the teaching doctrines of the Church. Let me employ an analogy. I have a relationship with my little girl. It is not a static one, but dynamic, ever growing. But I teach my little girl many things. I told her that when she dies, she and I will rise again to new and everlasting life, just like the Beast on her favorite movie, Beauty and the Beast, or her second favorite movie, Snow White, who awakens from the sleep of death from the kiss of the Prince. I talk to her like that, according to her level and ability to understand. Now, our relationship will continue to grow, for it is dynamic. And our conversation will also grow and change. The level will become increasingly more profound. I wouldn't talk to her like that if she were a teenager. But my message would not change. It's not as if the day she turns 18 I will tell her that we will not rise again from the dead. No, my teaching remains the same, only the mode of expression will change to suit her age level.

I tell her not to steal and to always tell the truth, at this point in the context of Pinocchio, for instance, another favorite of hers. But it is not the case that on her 14^th birthday I will tell her that she can now steal and lie. No. I'll use a different strategy. I'll tell her about integrity, personal integration, split personality, etc. She wouldn't have been able to grasp this as a child, but certainly as a teen she could. Again, the content of the teaching remains unchanged, but the mode of expression changes. Imagine my little girl saying: Daddy, our relationship is dynamic, not static. So your ideas must also be dynamic and changing. Therefore, I should be able to lie sometimes, etc. This is bad logic. The one has nothing to do with the other. A dynamic relationship is dynamic, but the relationship itself is unchanging. In other words, it is a permanent but growing relationship. We have change within permanence. The problem with Post-Modernism is that Post-Modernism has not yet been able to reconcile change with permanence, being with becoming. But that should not be a problem for priests of the Church. You speak of Aquinas. He certainly was able to reconcile being and becoming. Aristotle could not, Plato could not, Hegel could not, and Nietzsche could not, and none of the existentialists could either. Aquinas was the only one. All we have to do is read Gilson and he'll explain it in no uncertain terms.

You say that you are one of the prophets who co-exist uneasily with the lawmakers. How do you know you are? I've heard it said that Mother Teresa is a prophet. I've heard others, like Billy Graham, say that Pope John Paul II is a prophet. Both Mother Teresa and John Paul II would certainly disagree with you on your theological contentions. How do we distinguish between the false prophets and the authentic prophets? Traditionally it has always been that the false prophet is inconsistent with the express and perennial teaching of the Church. That would make you a false prophet, Father. Does a prophet turn to the Church and wave his fist, or does he turn to the world and proclaim what the Church is proclaiming, like M. Teresa, or John Paul II?

Furthermore, wouldn't one need an unusually high sense of self-importance to call oneself a prophet? Is not this inconsistent with humility?

You say:

Together, we make up the Church. Together, sometimes in anger, always in tension, we move the Church forward in the relationship. If the Church were all prophet, and no one based in law...tradition...etc...we would be in terrible shape. But of course, we cannot swing the other way to total law, either. Rigidity, and insensitivity, self righteousness and arrogance are the result of that approach.

I agree with this. The question is who are the real prophets that we should listen to, and who are the false ones? If a prophet is saying something that is inconsistent with the very principles of Catholic teaching (not just rules, but principles), then we can safely say that this is a false prophet. To violate the principles is to violate the foundation. Hans Kung thought he was a prophet. He is no longer a Catholic theologian. And the interesting thing is that Kung has admitted that he is a disciple of Hegel. In other words, the Church was right in her judgment back in the early 80s (Hegel is a pantheist who argued that theology is surpassed by philosophy, as the final stage in the evolution of Pure Spirit).

The criterion for legitimate dissent is the following: if the dissent is based on Catholic principles, then the dissent is justified. For instance, consider Grisez's, dissent from traditional Church teaching on Capital Punishment, a dissent based on Catholic principles of the intrinsic goodness of human life, as you have spoken about. This kind of dissent will not lead one away from Catholicism, but into it more deeply.

Charles Curren, on the other hand, dissents on many issues not on the basis of Catholic principles, but on the basis of principles that are at odds with the principles of Catholic teaching and which lead one to ethical conclusions at odds with other areas of Catholic teaching. This is illegitimate dissent.

The true prophet will point to the principles on which his dissent is grounded. To say, "love" just does not do it. For that is far too vague, and it has justified all kinds of heinous crimes.

You said:

And so you cannot take what I say as totally indicative of where the Church is, but you cannot discount me either.

That is true. I have to measure what you say against the teaching authority of the Church.

You continue:

I do believe the Holy Spirit is alive and well in the Church. But the Spirit does not operate in a ZAP mode. It is always through the People of God, struggling to continually redefine the ancient principles, the sense of God in our midst, in the light of continually unfolding new dynamics of culture, of new awareness brought on by scientific discovery...It is very much the sense of Vatican II that the Church is not just a "top down" pyramid which gives out the sense of God to the faithful.

This is true, but it can be dangerously misused to justify all sorts of dissent. Always through the people of God, yet liberal dissenters say that it is through the liberal consensus that we find that Spirit. Others say you must consider the entire history of the Church. It could also be a remnant that is living according to the truth. But one thing is certain. I am not the Magisterium. Neither is a priest. I quote again from the Declaration on Catholic Doctrine:

"For," as the Second Vatican Council says, "there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (cf. Lk. 2:19, 51), through the intimate understanding of spiritual things they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure charism of truth." And the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI observes that the witness the pastors of the Church offers is "rooted in Sacred Tradition and Holy Scripture and nourished by the ecclesial life of the whole People of God."

But by divine institution it is the exclusive task of these pastors alone, the successors of Peter and the other Apostles, to teach the faithful authentically, that is with the authority of Christ shared in different ways; so that the faithful, who may not simply listen to them as experts in Catholic doctrine, must accept their teaching given in Christ's name, with an assent that is proportionate to the authority that they possess and that they mean to exercise.

For this reason the Second Vatican Council, in harmony with the first Vatican Council, teaches that Christ made Peter "a perpetual and visible principle and foundation of the unity of the faith and of communion"[21]; and the Supreme Pontiff Paul VI has declared: "The teaching office of the bishops is for the believer the sign and channel which enable him to receive and recognize the Word of God."

You say:

All of us have a responsibility to feed into the Body. Change comes from the bottom, not the top. Not to face up to our own vocations, to raise questions, to challenge, to uphold, to nourish, would be a grave sin against our baptism.. So I don't go along with your statement "So the Church is wrong.." That is far too simplistic.

Of course it is too simplistic. The people of God are the Church, that is, members of His Mystical Body. I am a member of the Church, and so are you. But I am not that part of the Church that is the Magisterium. Neither are you. You and I have a different mission, one that must take place in the larger context of loyalty to the Mystical Body.

But neither is the execution of the prophets! (troublemakers like me).

If you are a true prophet, you may yet receive the crown of martyrdom. But isn't that the sign of a true prophet? He's hated by the world? Remember, your words would make you very popular with the world. CNN would award you "Prophet of the Year". The Homosexual community would make a statue of you in your honor. But what prophet in the history of the Church or Israel was ever so widely loved? Didn't Jesus say: "You will be universally hated because of me" (Lk 21, 17)? Or, how about "If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you" (Jn 15, 18ff).

Shouldn't that be a sign that maybe you are not the prophet you think you are? A true prophet challenges the world to listen to God and to obey his commandments: "If you love me, keep my commandments." The world hates that. The world wants and demands all sorts of exceptions. That is why the world is very fond of Deconstructionism. There are no absolutes. Everything is in process. All is changing, and nothing is "static". They'd crucify a true prophet. And they always love the false prophet, because the false prophet tells them what they want to hear. It seems to me that you would only be unpopular with the true prophets of the Church. After all, look what the world is doing to Mother Teresa now. She's being smeared. And consider what is happening to Pius XII. The only voice in Europe opposed to Hitler in 1941, and look what is happening to his reputation.

Ongoing dialog, struggling to see where the Spirit wants to lead us...that is the search. All the questions, abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, tubal, etc., all need to seek the answers from that ultimate that life is sacred. But of course, that statement only makes sense if one is in relationship with a sense of the divine. If you are not, then you won't understand what I mean. If you are, especially at your level, then I don't need to explain myself.

How right you are. Relationship with Christ, though, does not take place outside of his Mystical Body. If I am inserted into Christ, I am inserted into his body, and my 'sense of the faith' will accord with the formulated teaching of the Magisterium, who is the sole interpreter of what authentically belongs to the 'sense of the faith'. Jesus did say that the Holy Spirit will lead you to where you don't want to go. The problem is that our culture has no notion of what constitutes authentic freedom. We are only free, according to popular culture, when we are free from anything that ties us down. Authority is seen as a threat to one's personal freedom. But authority exists to serve human freedom. It is the condition for the possibility of genuine freedom. The authority of the Church is a gift and it exists for my good. We should be very wary of those who see the authority of the Church as a threat to their freedom.

You have a very serious responsibility, a terrifying one when you really come to think of it. How horrible the thought that what we say could lead to somebody's eternal loss. Indeed, the teaching of the Church is a wonderful gift.

I enjoyed our exchange. As you say, this is the kind of dialogue that is healthy. All the best. Let us pray for one another.

Layman

P.S.: I know why you are a priest. And I know what you can offer me that the world cannot. You can consecrate. You can give me something that no one else can give me: the body of Christ, which is given up for us; and the blood of Christ, which has been shed for us and for all for the forgiveness of sins.

FOR SOME REASON, FR. C. TA DID NOT REPLY AND CHOSE TO DISCONTINUE DIALOGUE.

More from this author is available online.