The Georgetown Academy

"Non Serviam": On Kneeling at Mass

Professor Anthony Esolen (of the Dominicans' Providence College) gave a wonderful talk on Thursday entitled "Catholicism: The Last Hope of a Dying Culture," sponsored by the Tocqueville Forum on the Roots of American Democracy.  While I'll comment more in-depth on this talk in a couple of days, I'd just like to offer some thoughts on a rather profound point which Prof. Esolen brought up in passing.

He referenced a vision which Bernard of Clairvaux had of the fallen angels, whose legs are without knees, a physical manifestation of their refusal to serve God, that sin which resonates throughout all of hell, that sin which caused Lucifer to be thrown from Heaven in his simple assertion that "Non serviam" (I will not serve).  But why be kneeless?  Kneeling, quite simply, is a sign of physical deference, a physical action which makes manifest interior movements of the heart.  Just as kissing is one of many signs manifesting the romantic love between a couple, so is kneeling the natural position one takes when showing respect for something or someone.  I've heard of this imagery before, the imagery of the fallen to lack the ability to kneel, and I think it's imagery which has powerful implications for Catholics today.

Back in the pre-Vatican II days, Esolen pointed out, the congregation would approach the altar after the consecration of the Eucharist, and kneel alongside one another on an altar rail in order to receive the Sacrament.  While this tradition is still central to the Mass at some parishes, we generally approach the sanctuary in a single-file line, as if we're exchanging a ticket for something of unspeakable mystery.  Weird, no?  Haven't we lost a profoundly communal aspect of the Mass?  Haven't we lost the understanding that the Mass is a communal ritual, something to be partaken in together, as one body of the faithful?

The General Instruction of the Roman Missal holds that "In the dioceses of the United States of America, [the faithful] should kneel beginning after the singing or recitation of the Sanctus until after the Amen of the Eucharistic Prayer, except when prevented on occasion by reasons of health, lack of space, the large number of people present, or some other good reason. Those who do not kneel ought to make a profound bow when the priest genuflects after the consecration. The faithful kneel after the Agnus Dei unless the diocesan bishop determines otherwise."

And yet, it's rather widespread practice in many parishes to not kneel during the appropriate times.  I can't help but feel uncomfortable going to the 7:30pm Mass at Dahlgren, where few people kneel; don't get me wrong, I love the priests who say the 7:30, I think the choir and music are powerfully reverent (save, perhaps, for the bongo drums), but I can't help but get the feeling that folks are largely ignorant of the symbolism inherent in physical posture.  Now, this is admittedly a judgment of the way in which the liturgy is practiced at Georgetown, but I want to stress the fact that this is not borne from animosity.

This is largely a symptom of the "happy-go-lucky" feeling which so many contemporary liturgies are plagued with.  Of course, the Mass is a celebration which finds its roots in agapic eucharistic meals (the standard for first and second century Christians), but it is, in its most fundamental essence, a sacrifice.  But, not just any sacrifice.  The Sacrifice.  The Sacrifice which set loose humankind from our broken nature, the Sacrifice of God-made-man which makes possible our salvation, the Sacrifice which demonstrates what deepest love requires of us.

We have undoubtedly lost the sense that the Mass truly is a sacrifice in many modern liturgical practices; this is in part the beauty of the Tridentine Mass, as it is charged with an atmosphere that heightens our awareness of the Mass's mystery.  The sacrifice of the Mass is truly something to rejoice in, but joy does not necessarily equate with bongo drums and liturgical dancing (at least in our culture).  This joy is something far more interior, a joy which recognizes that the Mass is one of the most wonderful and beautiful gifts given to us; this is a joy whose overwhelming beauty ought to bring tears to our eyes and force us to our knees.

Yours in Christ,

Dave Gregory

Response to "Plan A Hoyas": An Open Letter to President DeGioia and the Georgetown Community

H*yas for Choice and United Feminists have joined together on campus in order to advocate for a "Plan A" campaign for so-called "reproductive justice" on our campus.  Here's The Georgetown Voice blog's piece on their goings-on.

Below is a letter composed by some of the undergraduate leaders in Georgetown's Catholic community in response to the "Plan A" campaign.  It will be distributed to President DeGioia and other university administrators on Friday.

~~~~~

February 26, 2010

 Dear President DeGioia,

            It has come to our attention that United Feminists and H*yas for Choice have recently submitted an open letter to your office and the University community at large.  We are writing in response in order to point out the errors within their campaign and thought process.  We do this not to over-dramatize this issue – which has resurfaced on a regular basis over the past two decades – or to belittle the University’s competency with regards to handling this campaign.  We simply write to support our beloved University’s ideals and identity, which inhere within every facet of Georgetown’s operations and campus life.

            The students who are currently advocating this “Plan A” campaign fail to understand our identity; they use terms such as “Catholic,” “Jesuit,” and “cura personalis” without a basic understanding of their significance.  Although perhaps not grounded in a willful ignorance, their argument nonetheless demonstrates a thorough and pervasive hostility for Georgetown as a Catholic institution rooted in the rich tradition of the Society of Jesus.  They advocate for “dialogue,” yet fail to engage in true dialogue given their ignorance of Catholic Social Teaching; there can be no dialogue without preliminary understanding, only empty accusations.  United Feminists and H*yas for Choice define our Catholic identity as “narrow,” and believe that the University’s identity “dangerously compromises Georgetown’s commitment to social justice.”  In reference to Catholic Social Teaching, their position is clearly problematic, as it blatantly and simplistically dismisses our ideal that every human life is a sacred vessel of God’s creative love.  That every human being is a beloved child of God, regardless of developmental stage in the womb, social or economic status, race, gender, or sexual orientation, lies at the root and ground of Catholic Social Teaching.  There cannot, as we know and believe, be true justice without this fundamental recognition.

            In quoting the Speech and Expression Policy, these students fail to understand the word “freedom” in the positive sense – freedom directed toward the good of the individual – and instead advocate for a negative “freedom” – “freedom” to do whatsoever one pleases.  They draw excerpts from official documentation in order to support their ideas, yet ignore the statement contained in Access to Benefits that a student group which “directly and substantially advocates positions inconsistent with Roman Catholic moral tradition” will not be given recognition.  United Feminists and H*yas for Choice twist and misrepresent terminology which they not only misunderstand, but hold in disdain. 

            The Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI addresses this fallacious logic in his most recent encyclical Caritas in Veritate:

“I am aware of the ways in which charity has been and continues to be misconstrued and emptied of meaning, with the consequent risk of being misinterpreted, detached from ethical living and, in any event, undervalued. In the social, juridical, cultural, political and economic fields — the contexts, in other words, that are most exposed to this danger — it is easily dismissed as irrelevant for interpreting and giving direction to moral responsibility….Truth needs to be sought, found and expressed within the ‘economy’ of charity, but charity in its turn needs to be understood, confirmed and practised in the light of truth. In this way, not only do we do a service to charity enlightened by truth, but we also help give credibility to truth, demonstrating its persuasive and authenticating power in the practical setting of social living. This is a matter of no small account today, in a social and cultural context which relativizes truth, often paying little heed to it and showing increasing reluctance to acknowledge its existence.”

            Given the nature of Georgetown University as an apostolate of the Roman Catholic Church, it is incontrovertible that the fundamental demands of the “Plan A Campaign” are completely unacceptable, namely that H*yas for Choice be made an official student organization and that condoms be provided on campus.  United Feminists is acting unilaterally, maintaining a position that is fundamentally unfair to its members who do not support this campaign; not everyone in the feminist movement at Georgetown is pro-choice, and this action is alienating and divisive for the feminist movement on our campus.  We do not write on behalf of our organizations as a whole, simply as a small contingent of concerned individuals, though we will bring this issue to the attention of the communities to which we belong.

            We propose a call for action as well, a forum for an honest and frank discussion amongst students.  We view this dispute as an opportunity to promote true dialogue and true education, an opportunity to foster greater understanding and respect amongst students who adhere to contradicting value and belief systems.

                                                                                    Yours in Christ,

Brigid Bower, COL 2011

Director, 2011 Cardinal O’Connor Conference on Life

Caitlin Devine, COL 2010

Director, 2010 Cardinal O’Connor Conference on Life

Past President, GU Right to Life

 

Jennifer Dixon, COL 2011

Co-President, Catholic Student Association

 

Gabriela Maria Fernandez, SFS 2010

Treasurer, GU Catholic Daughters of the Americas

 

David Gregory, COL 2010

Editor-in-Chief, The Georgetown Academy

Past Grand Knight, GU Knights of Columbus

 

Gabriella Hook, COL 2011

President, GU Right to Life

 

Joseph Kapusnick, SFS 2010

Past Grand Knight, GU Knights of Columbus

 

Kieran Raval, COL 2013

Advocate, GU Knights of Columbus

 

Steven Ryckbosch, COL 2011

Grand Knight, Knights of Columbus

"Catholicism: The Last Hope for a Dying Culture"

Originally submitted for the newsletter of the Tocqueville Forum on the Roots of American Democracy

            It might initially strike us as a bit odd that Professor Anthony Esolen of Providence College presented a talk entitled “Catholicism: The Last Hope for a Dying Culture” for the Tocqueville Forum, an organization dedicated to enriching conversation and dialogue about the roots of American democracy.  As a professor of Renaissance English Literature, what does Esolen have to contribute to our understanding of American culture, which is of such enormous gravitas in the successful functioning of American society?

            Esolen’s fundamental thesis is not so much that American culture is dying but that it is already dead, that it has lost its devotion to and appreciation of the cultus.  Contemporary society is endlessly busy, filled with an overwhelming noise which silences the human desire for beauty.  The lecture centered around Josef Pieper’s conception of the feast, which “has the power to embrace us all.”  It is only within the feast, the communal collection of all individuals, regardless of education, class, race, or any number of other segregating characteristics, that the person “is most free and most human when he celebrates feast in honor of the divine.”

            We have lost our collective memory, we have no common source of knowledge to return to, and we therefore have nothing for which to celebrate the feast.  Ultimately, in order to restore our culture, we must reestablish the preconditions of culture, we must rediscover our commonality, we must return to the feast in which we are freed from the divisive enslavement of segregation.  Esolen believes that as “primitive moderns,” we “have re-imagined Heaven to be the place where all our daily appetites are filled,” and a profound change of heart is required in order to remedy this tragic situation.

-Dave Gregory

Who needs the Roman Calendar when you've got the "Lenten Carbon Calendar?"

From Thomas Peters at American Papist and Fr. Z at WDTPRS comes a story that would be laughable if only it weren't so dangerous: 

Typically, when one thinks of Lent, one thinks of three traditional characteristics of the season: prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. Apparently, the Environmental Outreach Committee of the Archdiocese of Washington would like to add "turning your thermostat to 60" to that list of pious lenten actions, so much so in fact, that they have developed a "Lenten Carbon Fast Calendar" (you can download the PDF off Fr. Z's site). 

As the Church teaches, I certainly support respect and care (stewardship) for God's green earth. That said:

1. Perhaps the money and resources used towards this Green Lent project could have been better directed at some basic catechesis which we so often find is lacking in many adult and young adult Catholics. Basics here, folks, say, the importance of prayer, the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the necessity of confession, the purpose of Lent..... simple things that could do much in educating people and enhancing everyone's Lenten practice and overall faith.

2. We just witnessed one of the most horrific natural disasters in Haiti, with 200,000 people dead and $13 billion in damage . Some words of Singer, speaker, and all around awesome-guy Sean Forest come to mind. Sean happens to run a mission in Haiti. Speaking to a large gathering (rally, if you will) of youth in Connecticut over the summer of 2009, Sean essentially said, with so many in our world suffering from want of basic necessities (he referenced the many in Haiti who eat mud to just have something in their stomachs), it is truly disturbing that so much of popular (and as we see here, in some cases Ecclesiastical)  opinion and "good will", and thus money and resources, has gone towards solving the problem of "global warming", a problem that, mind you, is at best hotly contested scientific theory. 

One need not travel to Haiti to witness poverty and degradation. One merely needs to walk a few blocks from Georgetown's front gates, down M street and notice the numerous beggars along the side of the road. I quick trip around some other areas of the Archdiocese Washington reveals the extent of a problem that exists right in our backyard. 

I'll conclude with another thought from Sean: In a world where so many are suffering and dying from poverty, hunger, disease, and homelessness, don't go green, go RED. 

Did she really just say that?

Nancy Pelosi on today's Feast of St. Joseph and the 'health care' legislation in Congress:

Let's begin with the sheer sacrilege of Pelosi's statement: Invoking St. Joseph, "Pillar of families", on his feast day to promote a piece of legislation which in no uncertain terms is anti-family because of its radical anti-life elements, including tax-payer funded abortions and lack of conscience protection. Anyone engaging in some semblance of intellectual honesty will agree that there is no doubt about the anti-life nature of this bill: the US Catholic bishops join every major pro-life group in the country in opposition to the bill and provide ample reasoning for their opposition: USCCB Healthcare (see especially "What's Wrong with the Senate Healthcare Bill on Abortion: A Response to Professor Jost"). How quickly Pelosi invokes the Catholic faith when it is politically expedient for her and how quickly she blatantly disregards it in matters of faith and morals!. Sheer hypocrisy, but what else have we come to expect with this woman and 'catholyc' politicians like her?

For a minute let's also consider Pelosi's downright stupidity: Today is the Solemnity of St. Joseph, Husband of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The feast of St. Joseph the worker is on May 1st.

Now something more disconcerting than Pelosi's inability to read a liturgical calendar: this business of certain liberal organizations of religious women publicly defying their bishops and supporting this anti-life 'health care' legislation. As much as Nancy Pelosi and the anti-life liberals want to spin this as the legislation having been granted the seal of approval from the Catholic Church, I think this statement from the USCCB puts things into the right perspective rather succinctly. Also, Thomas Peters at American Papist reports on the counter-statement released by religious women faithful to the Church, her teachings, and her Bishops. Peters points out that this counter-statement represents 103 religious orders, while the original dissenting statement represented only 60 religious orders. Looks like Pelosi was wrong again about "every order that you can think of" being for this anti-life bill (certainly not a piece of 'life affirming legislation' as Pelosi claims).

Finally, Archbishop Chaput of Denver has been heroically speaking the truth on these matters from the start. Some very important articles from the Archbishop (he deserves our gratitude and our prayers):

The Captivity of 'Catholic' Witness

Catholics, healthcare, and the senate's bad bill 

St. Joseph, Pray for us!

UPDATE: A couple of great pieces on this from First Things:

Nancy Pelosi, Theocrat

Pelosi doesn't know from St. Joseph

Vertical vs. Horizontal

After reading Dave's post "Non Serviam: On Kneeling at Mass"  I found myself looking for a "like button" on Typepad.  Such a feature lacking, I figured I'd add my thoughts and comments on the matter which come in the form of a discussion on "vertical vs. horizontal" . On a side note, Prof. Esolen's lecture was simply brilliant. 

In answer to Dave's question "Haven't we lost a profoundly communal aspect of the Mass?" I would submit the following. In much of the agenda-driven and flawed implementation and interpretation of Vatican II we have seen an over emphasis on the communal nature of the Mass. Such emphasis too often tries to shift to secondary importance the "vertical" nature of the Mass, which stresses that the Mass is a sacrifice and prayer offered up to God, in which God's graces descend upon the faithful. In place of the vertical orientation of the Mass, which is rightfully the primary and most important understanding of the Mass, many have tried to stress the "horizontal" nature of the Mass, as being more about the gathering of a community to share in a meal. Such thinking is flawed as it detracts from the sacrificial nature of the Mass. To illustrate this flaw, I present the example of a priest saying a private Mass without servers or faithful present. He is performing the same sacrificial action and prayer that he would perform if people (the community) were present. His private Mass is no less valid, no less holy; it makes Christ no less present, the graces received are no less effectual, the prayers offered for the living and the dead are in no way diminished. Thus, the Mass is not in its primary orientation and purpose, an action to bring together the community, but rather a sacrifice of adoration, thanksgiving, reparation, and petition. The Mass is not dependent on the community (it occurs to me, however, that the community is dependent on the Mass).

The flawed thinking that emphasizes horizontality over verticality is reflected in much of modern church architecture (or the bastardization of older churches), namely, churches "in the round" with vague distinctions between the sanctuary Nave and the removal of the communion rail. Even the construction of altars themselves reflects the verticality of the liturgy. Traditionally, the High altar (again, emphasizing verticality), was situated prominently atop a series of steps (three or more), which the priest and server(s) ascended in beautiful and meaningful imagery (drawing on the ancient Jewish priests entering the Holy of Holies in the Temple) at the beginning of Mass following the recitation, kneeling at the foot of such steps, of Psalm 42 ("Introibo ad altare Dei" ... I will go in to the altar of God"). It was up to this altar that the faithful gazed as the priest elevated the Host and the chalice. Likewise, the priest descended from the altar to administer Holy Communion to the faithful, with imagery that reflect's Christ descending from heaven to come to us both in his Incarnation and under the appearances of bread and wine. Abuses, such as the gathering around the altar, which Dave mentions, do much to disrupt this important and symbolic dynamic.

Another development that has perhaps been seen by many as enhancing the communal aspect of the Mass is the sign of Peace. Yet, I would contend that this action, in its present form, is too often the expression of the same flawed thinking mentioned above. With Jesus Christ now present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity on the altar, the faithful are urged to "extend to each other a sign of peace". This action, which comes at the exact time when quiet meditation is most needed to prepare oneself for the reception of Communion,  often becomes nothing more than social hour (and a loud one at that), with people, and at times the priest, maneuvering half way around the Church to greet people. Often the priest or choir must wait for everyone to settle down before beginning a most ancient and Holy prayer, the Angus Dei. Not only is this disruption distracting for those who wish to quietly prepare themselves for Communion, it is utterly irreverent to our God who at that exact time, lies upon the altar. Perhaps a lesson should be taken from the Missal of 1962, wherein, during a low Mass, the priest makes a simple exchange with the people/server ("The peace of the Lord be always with you...and with thy spirit") followed by a prayer for peace (the same one found in the Novus Ordo prior to the sign of peace). In a Solemn High Mass, in addition to this exchange, the sacred Ministers exchange a "Kiss of Peace" in a very reverent, solemn, and subdued manner (initiated and closed with a bow, consisting of a slight embrace); from my missal: "The position in the Mass of this sign of fraternal charity is characteristic. Before receiving the Body of our Lord, Christians should show that they are at peace with their brethren." Perhaps this formula could be used in the Novus ordo amongst the faithful to show fraternal charity while retaining an atmosphere of reverence. At the least, let's leave socialization to coffee hour after Mass.

The Mass's communal/horizontal nature is not to be denied but it is to be rightly subordinated to the Mass's vertical nature. As Prof. Esolen pointed out, what could be more communal than kneeling with your brothers and sisters in Christ awaiting the reception of your Lord and God in the Eucharist? Furthermore, in the Mass, as evidenced in the various prayers, particularly the Preface and the Cannon, we are united with the Communion of Saints who kneel with us before the altar as the priest, in persona Christi, offers the Body and Blood of Christ to God, representing the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross in an unbloody manner. In my personal practice, I like to utter a short prayer to Mary, recalling that I am kneeling before the same sacrifice at Calvary before which she knelt, and that she is beside me as I witness this sacrifice take place.  

Thus, much of the authentic "profoundly communal" understanding of the Mass has been lost, replaced by an artificial notion of community, incorrectly stressing the horizontal over the vertical. Yet, with a correct attitude of reverence we can rediscover the true communal nature of the Mass.

-Kieran Raval.

An Alternative Response to Mr. James Alison's January 27th Lecture (by Kieran Raval)

I appreciate Dave's thoughts (found below) on Mr. Alison's lecture"From Impossibility to Responsibility: Developing New Narratives for Gay Catholic Living", however I would like to submit an alternative take on the issue. 

 

While I had hoped that Mr. Alison’s presentation and the faculty responses would be informative and edifying, I was greatly disappointed. I take objection to Mr. Alison's lecture (and the venue as a whole) in three areas, namely, it was an 1. offensive, 2. biased, and  3. radical affront not only to the moral teachings of Holy Mother Church but also to the millions of Her children: bishops, priests, religious, and faithful, who authentically hold, teach, and live the Catholic faith.

Beneath Mr. Alison’s serene eloquence existed a self-evident animosity towards Church teaching and Church hierarchy. Subtly but undoubtedly, insults were hurled as Church officials were portrayed as willfully ignorant and out of touch, at best, and, at worst, as modern-day Pharisees. Yet, the most offensive, unprofessional, and tactless insult came in Mr. Alison’s characterization of some Church officials as “closeted self-loathing gays” using homosexuals as a scapegoat to justify their own moral superiority. Such blatantly anti-Catholic rhetoric has no place in any serious institution of higher learning, let alone one that claims to embody the values and identity of the very Church that Mr. Alison so viciously attacked.

Of even greater concern than Mr. Alison’s tastelessness was the dearth of any positive or fair presentation, by any of the speakers, of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. The reasoning for this absence seemed evident enough in Mr. Alison’s lecture as well as in the overall tone of the evening, namely, that there is no need to represent the Church’s position because that position does not merit a defense, as it is the stuff of old men in robes at the Vatican, clinging desperately to their anachronistic, discredited ideologies of fear in some feeble attempt at self-righteousness. While Mr. Alison was quick to quote Archbishop André-Joseph Leonard’s arguably poor choice of words, he failed to make much reference to the Church’s call for all to respect and love homosexuals, the Church’s invitation to homosexuals to live in the freedom of Christ through chastity, nor to the Church’s efforts at outreach to homosexuals.

A critical examination and debate of differing views is certainly necessary in a University, yet providing a lineup of speakers that is of one mind hardly achieves that end. Furthermore, couching the event as Catholic without providing a truly authentic Catholic voice, faithful to Church teaching, not only diminishes this University as a Catholic and Jesuit institution, but also leads to confusion and scandal among those in attendance. Wednesday’s program was not as much about dialogue and discussion, which is certainly necessary, as it was about providing a platform for a very radical agenda that seeks to undermine Catholic morality and theology. 

It is this agenda and the Church's teaching which ultimately carry the most weight and provide the substance of the debate itself. The general premise underlying Mr. Alison's argument was the idea that science has given us a clear and definitive answer as to the root and nature of homosexuality. While Mr. Alison frequently referred to this "anthropological fact" he did not once cite a natural or social scientific study to support his central premise. A quick google search on the matter shows that work has been and continues to be done in search of a "gay gene" to prove homosexuality's genetic origins. Yet, other equally relevant theories abound including ones regarding biochemical influences during development in the womb as well as social and developmental factors (or "nurture" as it were). The fact is, there exists no scientific consensus to which Mr. Alison alluded. However, the existence of such a consensus matters not. 

While discovering the cause of homosexuality may be a great achievement for science, it will have little if any impact on Catholic moral teaching. Such teaching is based on Scripture, which outlines God's plan for human love in the Creation Story, and on observation of the Natural Order of Creation, or what could be termed "Natural law". Nature points to the inherent complementarity of Male and Female and Scripture reinforces this point. The Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, teaches that this complementarity and the natural attraction resulting from it, finds its ultimate end and fulfillment in Holy Matrimony, wherein "a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two fo them become one body" (Gen 2:24).

 Holy Matrimony is, in other terms, a covenant of love. Love is the key term here. The Church teaches that marriage (this covenant of love) has two ends: The good of the spouses and the procreation of children (see CCC 1601). Many would submit that a homosexual relationship would be for the good of the two parties involved. Yet, the fact remains that such a relationship bears no fruit, thus failing to fulfill one of the two necessary characteristics of this covenant of love, and in the end, failing to fulfill the human person seeking authentic love.

Does such authentic love necessitate the bearing of fruit? To answer, we look to God who is Love himself, who is a Communion of Persons, that is, the Trinity. The love between the Father and the Son is so great that it exists as its own person, the Holy Spirit, proceeding form the Father and the Son. Thus, the complementary attraction between male and female, which finds its fulfillment in Holy Matrimony, mirrors the divine Communion of Love, the Trinity. Therefore it is not sufficient to merely regurgitate slogans "if two people love each other..."; one must critically examine what the elements and ends of such love are, which Natural law and Scripture through the teaching of the Church tell us to be unity and procreation. 

Given that homosexual attraction fails, by nature, to exhibit any procreative aspect, it is unnatural, it is disordered and it is contrary to God's plan for human love, as I outlined above. Mr. Alison couch's the Church's teaching on this matter as viewing homosexuality as a "pathological disorder" although I have never seen such a phrase in a Catechism or Church document. This brings me back to my original point that whatever science discovers will have no bearing on the Church. Whether science labels homosexuality as a psychological disorder, a product of environment and development, the result of too much or too little of a hormone in utero, or a genetic trait,  it will remain contrary to God's plan for human love. 

There seems to be a hangup over the idea that if only homosexuality were proved to be the product of genetics, the Church would relent, as if the genetic code were somehow the Word of God. There exists many disorders that result from genetics. This is not because God somehow programed these things into our DNA, but rather because we live in a fallen world. Thus we can say that homosexuality is a result of that fallen world, as are all disordered inclinations (including those of a  heterosexual nature, or prideful nature, or greedy nature...). We know that homosexuality is not part of God's plan for human love because Sacred Scripture illumines for us what is by accounting for reality before the Fall of Man. 

While we say that homosexuality homosexuality is an objective disorder, I do not liken it to a disease or necessarily to a pathology. I'm not sure that there is a metaphor that  corresponds exactly but I would offer two ways of looking at it:

1. Homosexuality is a disordered inclination much like lust (again, including disordered heterosexual tendencies), greed, jealousy, anger etc. These are all very universal to the human condition as a result of fallen nature. The inclination, or concupiscence, is not sinful in itself as it is beyond our will. Yet just because something is not sinful (sin implies knowledge and will), does not mean it is as God originally designed it. 

2. Since the theme of genetics is so popular, homosexuality could be likened to the inclination towards alcoholism, which has been shown to have a genetic link. Some suggest this is not a valid comparison because alcoholism is a self destructive behavior while homosexuality is not. First it is important to distinguish between an inclination or even genetic predisposition and an action. Secondly, I would submit that acting on the inclination of homosexuality is self-destructive because it runs contrary to God's plan for human love. This self destruction may not be immediately apparent because one feels he is finding fulfillment in the consummation of his desires and inclinations. Yet, as with heterosexual lust, the unchecked acting out of every desire, even in the name of love or fulfillment, is, in fact, self destructive, principally because it runs contrary to God's plan. Conforming one's passions to the Divine plan is the means by which one finds both true fulfillment and freedom.

It is exactly this, the conforming to the Divine plan, which the Church instructs homosexuals and heterosexuals alike to do, principally through the cultivating the virtue of chastity. In the case of the former, the Church seeks not to "fix" as if a disease existed, but rather to offer the means by which one can have greater union with Jesus Christ in this life, and ultimate union with him in the next. Holy Mother Church therefore recommends to homosexuals the sacraments of Confession and Eucharist as means of strengthening one against temptation and assisting in the conformance to God's will. The Church also emphasizes the important role of friendship, family and the Church community in the lives of homosexuals. It is important to again note that while the Church teaches homosexual tendencies are disordered, the homosexual is not in any state of sin until he acts upon such tendencies. Thus, neither God nor the Church rejects homosexual people in anyway. The Church recognizes the inherent dignity and worth of each individual and the need for respect and compassion for all. She therefore clearly denounces all bigotry, violence etc towards homosexuals.

While the Church does run many outreach programs to homosexuals, I agree with Mr. Alison in his point that She needs to do more (however, I'm sure we would disagree on the nature of such programs). I think we are starting to see a trend in this direction however, with Bishops conferences giving directives on pastoral initiatives for homosexual persons. Thus, while the Church lovingly embraces all of her Children and gives them the means of sanctification and salvation, She will not waver in her moral teachings despite any pull of popular opinion, new scientific information, or even elements within Her that have their own agendas that are contrary to Her true and holy teachings.

Thoughts on Fr. James Alison's Lecture "From Impossibility to Responsibility: Developing New Narratives for Gay Catholic Living"

Fr. James Alison (http://www.jamesalison.co.uk/), a former Dominican, is one of the most important contemporary theologians; incredibly well-respected and impressively articulate, Fr. Alison spoke at Georgetown last week to a crowd of administrators, students (a relatively diverse group, as students from Catholic groups were present as well as members of the LGBTQ community), and faculty members.  His talk addressed the Catholic approach to homosexuality, calling for a richer and deeper understanding of what homosexuality is in Church teaching.

Admittedly, I am more of a traditionalist than not, and more of a conservative (using very broad brush strokes to paint such a generalization) than not, but I could not help but find myself discovering a great degree of truth in Alison's talk and his approach, particularly because his ponderings were grounded in sincere love of Christ and love of the Church.  I'd like to provide a brief reflection on Alison's talk, and elaborate on some of his points:

Firstly, as a friend pointed out, Alison did not fairly represent Church teaching on the matter, so here it is, straight from the Catechism:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

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

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

 

The Catholic Church has viewed homosexuality as an inherent disorder over the course of its history, a "pathological" disorder as Alison put it, rather than a simply minority variant in the population.  It admittedly bases this understanding not on reason, but on Sacred Scripture, and reason, as we have come to understand, would hold that homosexuality is not as much of a disorder as the Church has thought.  We have all heard the cry "The Church can never be wrong!"  But alas, the Church has been wrong, and should scientific discovery come to prove -- with greater certainty than it already has -- that homosexuality is a minority population variant rather than a pathological disorder, it would be a relatively minor discovery when compared to discoveries made in the past.  For example, while we now know that we do not exist in a geocentric (or even heliocentric, for that matter) universe, it was once believed that we did, and while it took a bit of time for the Church to revise its mistaken understanding of the created cosmos, this shift in understanding did occur.  It was also widely believed that salvation was not attainable for the unbaptised or for those outside of the Church, but ever since the Second Vatican Council, the Church officially recognizes that universal salvation is indeed possible!

Basic lesson: the Church is sort of like a giant cruise ship.  It can change direction, but it can take a while given its size.  Should it reform its official teaching on homosexuality, it would be a rather minor change in comparison with the aforementioned previous progressions of understanding.

Ultimately, I find that this issue is of great pastoral concern; as one can imagine, many homosexual Catholics end up leaving the Church because they feel unwelcome, which is undoubtedly a great tragedy.  As Fr. Ryan Maher, S.J. points out to his Jesuit Education class, homosexuals who remain within the Church are among the most important witnesses she has.  Here's the root of the problem: Church teaching and pastoral outreach currently foster an unending cycle of hatred and rejection.  Homosexuals feel unwelcome by the Church, the Church continues to remain steadfast in its ways thereby leading to increasing marginalization, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

What do we do when we encounter a disordered object?  We try to fix it.  We try to rid alcoholics genetically disposed toward alcoholism of their self-destructive tendencies.  Disorder can be understood in terms of the classical definition of evil, as made famous by St. Augustine: the privation of a good where a good ought to be.  Thus, if we really understand homosexuality as a disorder, we will maintain the impulse to "fix" homosexuality in some fashion.  There is a crucial difference between a disordered evil such as alcoholism and homosexuality, for the latter ultimately concerns one's natural inclination to find meaning and fulfillment with another human being in a manner that is selfless, pure, and faithful.  Most things which we consider disorders result in inability or self-destruction, whereas sexual inclination is a gift from God, an expression of the deeply-rooted human desire to discover love.  Apart from the ability of a homosexual to procreate, can we really assert that the erotic love between two homosexuals is inherently impure or self-destructive simply because of their inability to procreate?

I asked Fr. Alison the following question: "given that sexuality and the Sacrament of Marriage are wedded (by this I meant inextricably linked), should the Church come to a deeper and richer understanding of homosexuality, would that necessitate the Church to provide homosexuals with the Sacrament?"  His answer, I think, was an excellent one: we do not know.  We simply cannot know the liturgical or sacramental implications of theological advancement.  While I think that the Church's understanding of homosexuality ought to be refined based on relatively recent scientific and psychological discoveries (within the past few decades), I remain unconvinced that such an enriching and deepening would necessarily require that the Sacrament of Marriage be redefined as well.

On the rare occasion I get to argue this topic with Catholics who hold steadfast to Church teaching, I have found that none of them have either known or developed loving friendships with a homosexual individual; such an experience transforms one's understanding.  I know it has my own.  I am forced to question Church teaching because as it stands, it marginalizes, it forces homosexual Catholics to the periphery, and even beyond it; it leads to decreased faith in Truth, hope for Truth, and love of Truth.  Ultimately, it's about bringing people to fall in love with Christ as part of the Church, and anything which causes people to fall out of love with Christ and to reject the community which Christ established is clearly not of God.  It is the product of the "enemy of our human natures" (thank you, St. Ignatius) working within our hearts to cause division and discord rather than unity and harmony.

This is a challenging conversation to have.  It is messy and complex on a variety of levels, and I gladly welcome criticism or questions.

Pax Christi,

Dave Gregory

P.S. I would recommend reading Fr. Alison's Letter to a Young Gay Catholic.

Jesuit Heritage Week 2010

So, Jesuit Heritage Week is once again upon us, and I wanted to point out some of the events which I am looking forward to most:

1.) "Our Jesuit Heritage: What the Buildings Say" with Professor John Glavin (Wednesday, 2:30pm, White-Gravenor Patio)

This has always been my single favorite event of the week; it's a fascinating look at the Jesuit and Catholic symbolism which pervades our campus and its architecture.  The tour lasts about two hours, and every minute is well worth it.  He gives a history of the university, from the moment Jesuits arrived on Maryland's shore in 1634, describes the artistic symbolism of Gaston Hall, and talks about some of the most important figures in the University's history.  This tour changed the way I think about Georgetown, and it's worth missing class for.

2.) "What is the Mass?" with Rev. Larry Madden, S.J. (Tuesday, 5:30pm, Dahlgren Chapel)

The Mass, which is the highest prayer of the Church universal, is charged with imagery and symbolism in every detail.  Fr. Madden's thing is the liturgy, and he will doubtlessly give attendees a greater appreciation and understanding of this ritual which was instituted by Christ before his passion and death.

3.) Final Vows of Rev. Matthew Carnes, S.J. (Thursday, 5:30pm, Dahlgren Chapel)

There are a few milestone moments in the life of every Jesuit, and taking Final Vows is one of the most important.  A Jesuit professes First Vows (perpetual vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience) after his first two years in the Society as a novice, and professes Final Vows a period after he has been ordained a priest (or been a Brother).  Before taking these final vows, a Jesuit must first finish his formation in Tertianship -- which is essentially a return to the novitiate -- and this profession of vows includes a special vow to the pope with regards to missionary activity.  What is remarkable about either profession is that it is done within the context of a Mass, in which the Jesuit kneels before the consecrated Blessed Sacrament, and professes to the Eucharist.  This will be a very interesting look into what it means to be a Jesuit.

4.) "Theology on Tap" (Saturday, 7:30pm, Epicurean & Co.)

This is a wonderful opportunity to get to know the Jesuits in a relaxed, informal atmosphere.  Mission and Ministry will be picking up the tab for munchies and drinks for the evening, and at the very least, take advantage of the university's generosity.  But more importantly, this is a great way to get to know our very own "Men in Black."  For many, the Jesuits remain a rather enigmatic collection of campus individuals, so come dissolve some of the mystery!

Peace,

Dave Gregory

Back in the Swing of Things

Well, as the new semester begins, The Georgetown Academy hopes to publish three issues before the academic year comes to a close, in order to make up for our embarrassing lack of presence last semester.  This blog will be updated on a regular basis by over a dozen members of the undergraduate Catholic community, and these writings will pertain not only to Catholic goings-on at Georgetown, but will also serve as a source of discussion regarding Catholicism as an international faith and the Church as an international body of faithful.  In short: stay tuned, and check back with us frequently.

Pax Christi,

Dave Gregory