I agree with you there, wholeheartedly! The idea that being a true Catholic consists in adhering to “rigid, determined set of rules” is a caricature of my position – a straw man. I just said that we, as Catholics, owe the Church hierarchy – at the very least – the presumption that they might know what they’re talking about in matters of faith and morals. Why? Precisely because being a true Catholic, as you say, is based on our reaction to the person of Jesus Christ. For it is our Blessed Lord himself who gave the Apostles and their successors a particular share in his authority for the sake of the Church, giving them the keys to the kingdom of heaven. It is he who made Peter the Rock; it is he who said to the Apostles, “The one who hears you hears me”; it is he who revealed to us in the scriptures that we ought to listen to the teaching of the bishops, and who taught St. Ignatius of Antioch (1st century), through the Apostle John that the bishop ought to be regarded as one of the Apostles. It is because of reverence for our Lord and humility before his word that we listen to the Church.

Faith and reason are being integrated on this issue. If you take seriously the arguments offered by the defenders of the magisterium, you’ll find that to be the case. Pondering the question anew in our current circumstances is important. But don’t be so quick to presume that our current circumstances call for a revision of the teaching. As I have been saying, there is not a scientific consensus on this yet. The political climate in favor of one particular outcome makes a consensus difficult. People tend to form their opinions on whatever studies they choose to consult.

“Sexual expression” is a category of popular psychology, and can be difficult to reconcile with the Biblical, Christian concept of sexuality, which is always connected with marriage, and marriage always finding its great and natural fulfillment with children. Sexuality, in the Scriptures, is never something that finds its value simply in being “expressed.” “Sexual expression” is an indifferent thing, which can be bad or good, depending on the circumstances. There is no “right” to sexual expression. Of course, sexual repression is unhealthy, and quite another matter altogether. A spiritual director once told me that when sexual temptation comes, I should first affirm the basic goodness of (my) sexuality, then pray that my loins might be girded with the truth, (in other words, that I may be given the grace to be chaste in mind and action according to my vocation), and finally to think of our Blessed Mother, and ask her to intercede for me for these graces. In this practice we have the recognition that sexuality is good, but also that our sexual passions so often go astray, and we need heaven’s help to deal with them.

Finally, no one has been made a second-class citizen in the Church. Each one of us has his or her own personal vocation, and personal sharing in the cross of Christ – because Christ died and rose for each one of us individually. Many have particularly painful crosses to bear (if I knew you better I might tell you of mine), but I believe wholeheartedly that such people have a unique possibility of witnessing Christ to others from a pierced heart burning with Divine Love. Deep wounds, deep sadnesses give Christ a deep place in our hearts to dwell, when we bring him our pain and lay it at the foot of the cross.

In my mind, it seriously dilutes Jesus’ message of love and inclusivity to create, almost, a second class type of person within the Church, who is not able to express themselves fully through their sexuality because of what their orientation happens have them be attracted to.

Homosexual orientations in my mind are simply a variation, nothing more, when it comes to the held norms of human sexuality and sexual expression. If science says that a homosexual orientation is something that has been innately conditioned since birth or very early on in a person’s life (I for one remember checking out guys rather than girls even in pre-school)-and that to try and change that orientation by any means will only prove serverely detrimental to a person psychologically as well as emotionally- it isn’t too much to ask whether this question should be considered in light of new understandings.

So to me, I’m just asking why the leaders of the Church can’t consider responding to the question of homosexuality in a different way? Because if Catholicism is truly supposed to integrate the virtues of Faith AND Reason as Pope Benedict so often says; why can this not happen on this issue. It seems to me that in the case of sexuality, the leaders of the Church don’t want to acknowledge that in some cases it may be Reason that enlightens our Faith. This is why I think that a new, perhaps uniquely nuanced, response is required by the Church at this time as the world has begun to acknowledge that to deny a person rights based on their sexual orientation is simply inhumane. So instead of simply reiterating the fact that the condition of homosexuality is a “disorder” that cannot be acted upon, without pain of sin, why can we not ponder the question anew, in light of our current circumstances?

Jesus Himself teaches us to question our faith as He debated and argued with the Pharisees and Saduccees of His day, even from His youth!

At the risk of allowing our exchange to degenerate into a “tit-for-tat” (I sincerely dislike that kind of thing), I want to ask whether you are aware of the circumstances surrounding the APA’s decision to change the classification of homosexuality in 1973 [that it was a political move and based on no new data]?

Perhaps, however, this is not the place for me to press this issue – and I sincerely apologize if I have already pushed it too far. I will just end, pushing it a bit further, by saying again: In matters of Church teaching, the burden of proof lies on those who would question it. If we don’t concede this, what kind of real meaning is there to being Catholic? And of course – the arguments given against the moral wisdom of the Church are going to have a certain plausibility about them – especially when there are personal interests and struggles involved. But our Lord Jesus has taught us that if we give up our own lives for his sake – only then will we truly find ourselves. This is the risk he calls us to make. But his love guarantees that the risk will not be made in vain. God bless you, brother.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100122/ap_on_re_us/us_gay_marriage_trial;_ylt=AjNsKz3J7Njb7TbUleIS7PWs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTNwZzVndGMwBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTIyL3VzX2dheV9tYXJyaWFnZV90cmlhbARjY29kZQNtb3N0cG9wdWxhcgRjcG9zAzYEcG9zAzMEcHQDaG9tZV9jb2tlBHNlYwN5bl9oZWFkbGluZV9saXN0BHNsawNwcm9wOHRyaWFsd2k-

The Church does take scientific evidence into account, as you say. But of course, science cannot of itself determine Church teaching. The Church has to be really patient and conservative; for even science itself is unsure on many matters, and sometimes a scientific consensus changes after a generation or so when new data is discovered. Also, it is not always clear that a particular scientific finding actually has implications for Church teaching, even when some may want to draw them. You can’t always derive an “ought” from an “is.”
But since the scientific community is far from having a consensus on this issue anyway, your point that the Church takes science into account is moot at this point. We would all be better served to take the arguments in favor of the Church’s teaching seriously, and seek to inform our consciences on it. If we’re caught on the feeling/idea that the teaching is bigoted and unloving, we may need to be more willing to take our Church leadership at their word and try to see things from their perspective. Charity demands we do this for everyone – all the more should we do this for those who are given authority by God for our sakes in the Church.

I bet John Heard would have issues with your logic, as well. In all cases, though, a profound reverence for truth, setting aside one’s own personal interests, feelings, and prejudices is necessary to have any chance of honing in on the truth. And in matters of Church teaching, the burden of proof lies with those who would question it. We’re Catholic, aren’t we?

You do mention that it would be easy to dismiss the Church’s teaching on homosexuality if the Church promoted bigotry. While the Catechism urges the treatment of those “with homosexual inclinations” with dignity and respect, widespread practice does not seem to follow this exhortation. Also, in the past, members of the Church have engaged in bigoted behavior, which is why Pope John Paul II issued an apology for past ill treatment of the Jews by the Church. The Spanish Inquisition is just one example of how the Church has at times been discriminatory and bigoted.

You also mention science. While the scientific arena is not the Church’s area of expertise, nevertheless the Church condemned Galileo for promoting the idea of heliocentrism. Of course, contrary to popular opinion in the Church at the time, the Earth is not the center of the universe. Today the Church, in its wisdom, does place a burden of proof on the scientific community. The Church’s current position on science does allow for us to take new data into account. A modern example would be Pope Benedict XVI stating that the idea of evolution is not incompatible with Catholic belief. Of course, this is a far cry from a more traditional, literal interpretation of Genesis and Creationism.

The reason I am critical of the Church’s teaching is because when viewing the full scope of the Church’s history and theology, it is easy to see that things can and do change over time as our understanding is refined. Bearing that in mind, in the pursuit of an authentic faith and a genuine desire for Truth, we cannot always consider every teaching to be simple black-and-white.

Lastly, I did follow your link and I read a few pieces from John Heard. He has an expansive lexicon and a lyrical writing style, however I didn’t find him particularly convincing in terms of his logic. In any case, he provides an interesting perspective that would warrant a counter-point. — I believe that the book written by Dominican Gareth Moore OP, “A Question of Truth : Christianity and Homosexuality”, is a much more scholarly and theological look at the topic. I would highly recommend it.

Pax Christi,

Rick