Bishop DiMarzio on sexual orientation
On December 16, Bishop Nocholas DiMarzio of Brooklyn published an editorial in The Tablet called "Understanding Human Sexuality." Bishop DiMarzio makes a number of interesting points.
1. He rejects the idea that orientation is an intrinsic part of someone's personality. He prefers the word "inclination" from the language of the catechism and Vatican documents. He adds that "to use the term 'gay' or 'lesbian' to describe a person is as limiting for a homosexual person as if we were to use the word 'straight' to define a heterosexual person.
2. He ststes " The inclination toward homosexual acts is disordered since it is an inclintion toward sexual acts that do not accord with the natural purposes of sexuality....Nor does it mean that the person himself or h erself is disordered. It is only the inclination that is disordered.
3. He opposes a NYC health department initiateve to allow persons to change their sexual identification by simply stated that they have lived in a psychological mindset of another sex without the necessity of a sex change operation.
4. "We recognize that the humanity of Jesus helps us to understand our own
humanity better."
Neither biological or
Neither biological or psychological sciences have been able to establish a definitive understanding of homosexuality. For the Church to attempt to establish a definitive position before such understanding is realized is to assume it has this full understanding. To attempt definitive statements, in view of the current, incomplete understanding of homosexuality, flys in the face of both reason and faith.
Some sexual acts are sinful judged on their content and circumstances. I believe this to be true of any sexual act between any two people. To judge all sexual acts to be sinful when between people of the same sex when homosexuality still lacks understanding has, I believe, the potential of being a false judgement. That scripture mentions same sex sexual acts, does not necessarily indicate that they understood the difference between the acts and what we now, generally, understand homosexuality to be.
We, the Church, along with the Curia, need to be careful in our judgements and definitive statements until such time as the homosexual state is fully understood.
I think it's more accurate
I think it's more accurate to say that we don't fully understand sexuallity in general, and in particular it's many shades of grey.
What we do understand, however, is that ALL of us, good, bad or indifferent, are made in the image of our God, each having little reflections of the amzingness of the almighty. Moral laws have grown over time to help us to understand what is good and distinguish reasons why some things are not good. These things continue to evolve as our understanding increases, little by little. Think of times past when the Papal States were busy executing prisoners for all sorts of things: would that be acceptable now, given the understanding of humanity and pshychology we now have? I think not. Indeed, much to the bamboozlement of some people, the church now makes it quite clear execution is not acceptable.
This should help us to understand that there is much difference between a theoretical theological postulation (ie that capital punishment is morally acceptable) and the reality of life, with all its' complexities and consequences.
Sexuality is a gift, a further reflection of small parts of the glory of God. We can certainly mis-use the gift, as we can with any faculty we possess. One of the greatest mis-uses is to deny the goodness of God's creation, to deny the integrity of the self in admitting and accepting our nature, whatever that nature might be.
That is not to say that one therefore will go on to live in a moral vacuum, but that truth begins with hard decisions and choices, and perhaps the greatest of these is the honesty with ourselves.
Shalom,
urbanrenewal
"That is not to say that one
"That is not to say that one therefore will go on to live in a moral vacuum, but that truth begins with hard decisions and choices, and perhaps the greatest of these is the honesty with ourselves."
Nicely stated urbanrenewal. When gays are asked to hide and deny their truth, then it seems we give permission for other truths to be hidden in order to justify the request for that hiding. Perhaps such an example is set by our clergy when they hide the truth of the extent of the sexual impropriety amongst their own members.
Amen again. It's sad to see
Amen again. It's sad to see people who are so fixed to a particular idea of humanity, they deny the evidence of God's children, us. Diverse, amazing, and all little reflections of the awesomeness of our creator.
Beacuse of that, while it's sad that some are not willing to let themselves understand, we have much to be proud of.
Amen, urban. Perhaps
Amen, urban. Perhaps because of some of the encouragement I've received from fine folks on these cafe threads, I've been adding a new prayer routine to my morning prayer time.
For the first time in my life--which is to say, 56 years and counting--I'm actually thanking God every morning that God has made me gay.
I can't say precisely why, but this is proving to be liberating, focusing, cleansing--in short, spiritually very profound for me. If nothing else, it forces me to keep challenging (and asking for grace to challenge) the vestiges of guilt and shame inside myself.
I think as I pray this prayer of the traditional prayer Jewish men prayed, in which they used to thank God for not having made them a woman or a slave.
Sometimes we have to pray the reverse of what the dominative tendencies in our culture tell us to pray....
William D. Lindsey
Frannie, I've had computer
Frannie, I've had computer problems recently and work demands that keep my nose to the grindstone. So my participation on the cafe has been limited.
I've just now discovered this posting. Thanks for sharing information with us that would probably have bypassed many of us who don't live in the region.
My reading of the good bishop's meditation on "inclinations" is that it's an attempt to salvage the move the U.S. bishops made at their recent meeting, which tries to mute the harsh language about disorder by shifting away from the language of orientation to the language of inclination.
Unfortunately, this shift flies in the face of scientific evidence, as does the word "disordered" itself. Don't know if anyone happened to see the Doonesbury comic strip on Sunday, but it was classic, in this respect. It skewered those right-wing Christian groups in our society who like to speak of evolution as a "theory" that hasn't been "proven."
I remember soon after the last federal election, Garry Wills (a good Catholic commentator, need I mention?) wrote an op-ed piece in the NY Times saying that it signifies the end of the Enlightenment. The article pointed out the many respects in which the agenda of the religious right is to turn the clock back with regard to long-accepted scientific conclusions like evolution.
We are now seeing an attempt--even!--to resurrect an anti-contraceptive mentality, with all sorts of spurious science and proof-texting circulating around. Followed to its logical conclusion, this attempt to turn the clock back will return women to the barefoot-and-pregnant status.
And I'm convinced that this is not outside the imaginations of those who are trying to undermine science with "faith-based" nonsense.
William D. Lindsey
This is their stealth
This is their stealth agenda. I wonder how many folk who think it would be great to have an amendment against abortion realize that it would be , by these lights, outlawing contraception as well.
"Stealth agenda" is a good
"Stealth agenda" is a good phrase, Frannie.
Like me, you've probably been following some of the coverage of the federal appointment of Dr. Keroac. To me, what is being revealed about his positions illustrates the real dangers of the stealth agenda: on the basis of totally spurious science, to enact legislation that makes it much harder for people to obtain and practice birth control; to discourage good sex education for our teens (which, on the face of it, should actually help prevent abortions); and, in key respects, to return us to the dark ages when people (and especially women caught in all kinds of situations of unwanted pregnancy) tried just about any method at all--some of them very dangerous and ineffective--to avoid becoming pregnant and/or to abort.
Who knows? We may end up seeing anti-witchcraft laws coming back into fashion?
William D. Lindsey
Uh Bill, Evolution is a
Uh Bill, Evolution is a theory and it has not been proven. All debate on this issue is of course closed because those who question the gaping holes in evolutionary theory must be right-wing bigots, just as all those who are morally opposed to contraception want to see all women in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant.
Of course there is no need for those enlightened enough to answer evidence with evidence, they already know the 'correct conclusion', so they can just accuse those whom they disagree with with "proof texting".
(/rant)
John Paul II said evolution
John Paul II said evolution is more than a theory. Vatican II recognizes the need for new "analysis and synthesis" because of new understandings of evolution that enjoy general coinage. [Gaudium et spes, Intro, #5] You say "Evolution is a theory that has not been proven." Please. Evolution is more credible than presumptions that rely on the repetition of conventions of denial. Many evolutionary connections have been well established. What specific thing do you have in mind that is outside of evolution?
JP II was not a scientist,
JP II was not a scientist, nor is the Pope infallible in matters of science. G&S does not advance the theory, but recognizes the importance that it plays in our society. Evolution remains unproven. Scientific proof requires repeatable experiments or clear physical evidence. Scientists have not been populating another earth, nor have archeologist found the (hundreds of thousands of) missing links. I personally cannot rule out creationism, or any other plausible theory while evolution is touted as fact, despite gaping holes. It is a new fideism, faith in forgone scientific conclusions, despite lacking PROOF.
Do you give any credence to
Do you give any credence to the recent lawsuit and the judgment of the Court in re "Creationism"?
Not likely (there have been
Not likely (there have been a few cases in recent years, I'm not entirely sure which one you're referring to).
Here Today, colkoch is
Here Today, colkoch is right: I've had computer problems recently, and I also find it hard to track some replies on the cafe threads. I have not ignored you deliberately.
I have to confess I'm dumbfounded when you say that evolution is a theory and hasn't been proven. I suppose much depends on what you mean by the term "evolution."
From my standpoint, the main thrust of this theory was long ago proven, though the details are perhaps still debatable. As a nation, we are doing a horrific job of teaching science to young people, in part, because we still have groups in our midst who want to play fast and loose with scientific facts for religious reasons. As a result, we are falling far behind, at a global level, in producing new scientists. This is something Catholic writer Garry Wills predicted in an op-ed commentary on the presidential election of 2004, in which the reins of power seemed to be given to the religious right.
Until the "debate" between the current pope and Bishop Schoenberg occurred this past year, I haven't heard any Catholic debate about all in years regarding evolution. I had thought that for Catholics, this issue had long ago been resolved--and in favor of the "theory" of evolution. Our tradition's use of reason along with faith in doing theology requires us to respect incontrovertible facts, no matter how inconvenient they prove for our pet theories.
Most homilies I've heard on this subject for years, and all that I've read from reputable scripture scholars and theologians, indicate the creation narratives in the scriptures do not describe how creation occurred: they address the fact that all life has its origins in the Creator. But they do so in mythic terms, rather than scientific ones. There's no either-or choice between our creation narratives, with their deep religious insight that all life begins in God, and the scientific facts regarding the evolution of life from primal matter.
William D. Lindsey
Evoltution is a theory, by
Evoltution is a theory, by scientific classification, so is gravity. But macro evolution is almost entirely unproven. The evolutionists play fast and loose to contradict religion, such as saying evolution is proved without ever presenting that proof. The main thrust, the development of one species to another through the addition of new genes, is not proven. That mutations that would be necessary would survive has not been proven. That life can sponteously generate was proven false for complex organisms (fruit flies), and has not been proven possible. So no, evolution has not been proven, and the schools have a done a great job indoctrinating the theory into our children.
As far as the Church is concerned, the issue was not decided, but left open to personal belief, provided that evolution is acknowledge as under the guidance of God and that at some point God instilled an imortal soul.
What do you get when you
What do you get when you cross a buffalo with a cow---a whole new species called beefalo. You are leaving out the idea of cross breeding in your mutational discussion of evolution. This is a macro scale example of one mechanism of evolution. A micro scale example of evolution by survival mutation I cited below.
I was unware of any that
I was unware of any that could reproduce, but I think it would have limited potential for creating new breeds unless it occured between dissimilar species (ape and cow, or even horse and cow).
It is still far from conclusive proof of evolution, particularly as it was directly engineered by man(kind).
I know you addressed this to
I know you addressed this to Bill, but he has computer problems, and besides this might just be an example that bridges the gap between evolutionists and creationists. I got this info in a seminar and therefor don't have the exact reference, but I think it was published in Nature or Scientific American.
Some genetic biologists put 10 colonies of bacteria in petri dishes whose nutrient based agar was antithetical to their survival--as in the bacteria did not produce a digestive enzyme which would make the agar nutritionally useful. They came back some days later and 9 of the 10 colonies were healthy. This was considered highly unlikely for one of them, much less 9 of them. Upon DNA analysis, the 9 surviving colonies had mutated to produce the exact same enzyme needed to maintain survivability. How did these colonies do this? No hypothesis was brought forth by the experimenters as nine surviving colonies seemed to imply some 'agent' beyond chance mutation. Interesting huh?
Colkoch, you are constantly
Colkoch, you are constantly making my mind expand--when I don't want it to do so. It's easier to remain mentally unchallenged....
Thanks for sharing the results of this experiment with us. To me, it's a reminder that life thrives when it's surrounded by nurturing forces of love and affirmation. It reminds me of studies that have shown that infants who are otherwise provided for--nutritionally, with good clothing and good surroundings--often fail to thrive and can even develop marasmus (spelling?) if they are not picked up, talked to, and touched.
Profound implications there for our theology of communion, no?
William D. Lindsey
Bill, It's so good t hear
Bill,
It's so good t hear your voice. I was watching a recap of the Golden Globes on tv. The commentator discussed one of the honorees, s show called "Ugly Betty." I haven't seen the show, but it seemed to me from the clips that it would offer us a wonderful metaphor to replace the disfunctional family that is the church. I will watch the next episode prayerfully in the hopes that indeed all things are possible.
Frannie, I love "Ugly
Frannie, I love "Ugly Betty"! Unfortunately, it comes on at the same time as another of my "shows," and we aren't high-tech enough to figure out how to tape one show while watching another, so I segue back and forth between it and the other show.
But from what I've seen, you're right: it's a great metaphor to replace the dysfunctional family that's the church. I think this is what appeals to so many folks in this show and others like it: it offers a parabolic glimpse into a world in which everyone is accepted, and in which the "normal" values that reign in the world are turned upside down, and the last become first....
William D. Lindsey
By the way, seriously,
By the way, seriously, what's this thing *Orientation*? Did I miss the meeting? Where can I get my prospectus? Why do I need one?
I never loved a category, only a person. What's wrong with me? I didn't feel an uncontrollable biological compulsion to marry anyone. I CHOSE love. What's wrong with me?
Do I need a compass? [I NEVER was any good at orienteering; I always got lost ...] Am I the only one without one? Which way is North?
Please let me know the answers to my questions or I may be forced to continue exploring the world with only my heart, mind, and spirit. WHAT will become of me???
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)
You'll be fine. It's the
You'll be fine. It's the rest of us I'm worried about.
"He is outraged that one
"He is outraged that one could change one's gender identification simply by living as someone of the other gender and yet seems to imply that making the attempt to live as someone of the other orientation is somehow salutory."
I imagine this is a case of believing that it's better to live a personal 'lie' by twisting oneself to the 'truth' of natural law.
In order to make this palatable one apparently needs to use a lot of 'doublespeak'.
The bishop himself uses the
The bishop himself uses the term homosexual person, but rejects the use of gay person or lesbian. Is this a distinction without a difference or is he saying that one's sexual behavior exists in isolation from the whole constellation of pschycological and social orientation? Or is this an attack on political activism where the term gay rights appears far more often than homosexual rights?
He says we ought not to use the term straight to describe someone with a heterosexual inclination. Since the first laboratory for understanding personality is one's own psyche, has he determined that he himself possesses a tendency toward heterosexuality. How malleable does he experience that tendency to be? Had his own personal history provided him with sufficient incentive, might he be today a prelate of homosexual tendency? Kinsey created a scale of 0 to 6 to describe sexuality, 3 being bisexual or that area of the range in which one might experience both heterosexual and homosexual feelings.
Is Bishop DiMarzio's underatanding that most of us including himself reside in or near number 3?
He claims that the inclination is disordered, but not the person. How many times I wonder has he encountered an inclination separate from a person?
He is outraged that one could change one's gender identification simply by living as someone of the other gender and yet seems to imply that making the attempt to live as someone of the other orientation is somehow salutory.
Finally and most intriguingly he offers us the humanity of Jesus to help us understand our own sexuality. Whether that involves scholarship or speculation, such a study will surely prove fascinating.
Sex is as sex does.
Sex is as sex does. Persons, on the other hand, being neither "inclinations," as you say, nor simple constellations of behavior (sexual or otherwise) are not so easily contained by labels, in my view.
Frannie, thanks for raising this issue. You make the interesting observation that "the first laboratory for understanding personality is one's own psyche". I might go so far as to say that the ONLY laboratory for understanding is one's own experience (of which *psyche* is a fragmentary and often mysterious part.) This is a fascinating observation to me because it admits all the complexity and God-given diversity of our actual lives and the gifts we are to each other and to God as we live into the adventure of our lives and share our experiences.
I've watched and occasionally participated in the human sexuality discourse in social and ecclesial arenas for over two decades now (and in four different countries). I find it absolutely astounding that we maintain our dichotomous fictions: men and women; homosexual and straight; ordered and disordered. And even more astounding, these *categories* (not persons!) are discussed as though they were ancient! Genesis, no less!! Leviticus, no less!!! Oi vey.
Of course the question of sexual identity is vexed. SO much is riding on "proper" role assignment. I understand the political economy of it; I understand the sociology of it. I even think I understand the pop-cultural fascination of it. I simply cannot grasp the theological or religious sentiment of it as a refusal of reconciliation of persons OR as an exclusion from community. THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL WARRANT for either refusal or exclusion whatever the trumped up institutional claims to "righteousness" purport to be.
Imagine, we tolerate unjust wars and capital punishment with the most tortured logics and refuse to imagine the diversity of human sexual experience as a God-given grace. Moreover, we excoriate and punish those outside the purely social convention of gender differentiation on the basis of "protecting" the Family - that second most treasured gift from God. The mind boggles; the spirit weeps.
About Bishop DiMarzio I can say nothing having never encountered him but I have a soft spot for anybody from Brooklyn, more's the pity. He may or may not be his own laboratory but what's that to us? If his voice is just another version of homophobic vilification, so be it. I hope to meet him in the arena. If he's just a pathetic sexually ambivalent man who is dressing his anxieties up in fancy robes, oh well ... If, however, he is raising genuinely pastoral questions about how we DISCOVER WAYS TO LIVE TOGETHER AS CHRISTIAN PERSONS, then I would like to meet him (there is so little of that in high offices of our various ekklesia.)
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)
...we tolerate unjust wars
...we tolerate unjust wars and capital punishment with the most tortured logics and refuse to imagine the diversity of human sexual experience as a God-given grace...
US Air Force Sgt. Leonard Matlovitch's tombstone is inscribed with the moving quote:" They gave me a medal for killing two men, and a discharge for loving one."
Its our sick Gov.
Its our sick Gov. double-standard...(poor soldier)
our church is pretty unhealthy in the same way....
Love, Laugh, Live
I have to say that this hit
I have to say that this hit me right in the stomach, Frannie. It seems to sum up a lot of incomprehensible and conflicting attitudes. Rest in peace Sgt. Matlovitch.
Good God Almighty, have
Good God Almighty, have mercy on us.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"So if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new!" (2Cor 5)
Father Andrew Gentry FCSF
Father Andrew Gentry FCSF Chaplain to the Bethlehem Community Liverpool UK
This is our statement on human sexuality which my community teaches as an independent Catholic community of faith.
Reply
Reply all
Forward
>
>
>>> The Catholic Celtic Church in Christ holds to the belief of the ancient Celtic Church that the human body is a sacred vessel and an icon of the image of God. The very fact that God took flesh in the Incarnation is ample testimony to this belief! We affirm the sacredness of human sexuality as a divine gift which is to be celebrated and experienced in a loving and responsible manner whatever the orientation of an individual may be. We believe that the sacrament of marriage is between two persons irrespective of gender and is a holy covenant or union of the two that is blessed and witnessed by the Church. If such a union is entered into without impediment this union is for life and for the mutual enjoyment, support, trust and commitment of both persons as an expression of Love not only betwixt and between each other but also ultimately as a reflection and manifestation of the Source of All Love the Triune God who creates and sustains all. We believe that to break this holy covenant by entering into an extramarital affair is to commit adultery and adultery does injury and harm to the persons and the union of the partners of such a union.
>>> In affirming the sacredness of sexuality we recognize that all persons are sexual beings. Jesus Our Lord was a sexual being though we do not believe he expressed such "be ing" in a conjugal way not because he taught that eroticism and or conjugal activity was sinful but rather in being a celibate male he was Friend and Companion to All not simply to one and only one person. Jesus lived his sexuality in the affirmation of life and love in the relationships he had with all whom he encountered and in the physical reality of the Creation that his Heavenly Father created. Jesus as a Jewish male was circumcised yet he never taught that such a religious practice was a mandatory rite that all males had to undergo but the very fact that he did says in no uncertain terms he had a penis despite what some later writers in the Western Church often ignored or dare not speak of in their writings on the role of sexuality.
>>> There is much confusion as to the meaning of the New Testament term "the flesh". The Apostolic Fathers and Mothers when using this term never intended that the meaning referred to the body but rather to the standards of the "world" or the culture in which they lived and moved. It was not until the influence of Greek Classical philosophy particularly the Stoic School entered Christian theological thought that the term "flesh" took on the meaning of all things of the body in general and erotic and or sexual matters in particular. This influence was especially harmful in so much as it taught that matter was evil and only the spirit pure. Such an attitude is in direct opposition to the Hebrew concept that what God created and creates is inherently good or as the writer of the Book of Genesis so eloquently in utter simplicity says "Behold it was very good".
>>> We believe that our bodies are good, our sexualities if expressed lovingly and responsibly are good, that gender however it may be manifested is good, and that our individualities are gifts given to us by the Creator of us all. In the words of Philip Newell and George MacLeod " Hidden in the Mystery of our own bodies and the body of all creation is" the "unseeable One glory of the everlasting world".
>>> Glory be to God and Peace. Amen
>>>
>>> Father Andrew Gentry FCSF
>>> Canon Theologian to the Bishop
>>> Catholic Celtic Church in Christ
>>>