Here’s the third in Fr. Roger Landry’s exceptional series on the issues that surfaced around St. Cecilia Church in Boston and their scandalous plan for a Mass to celebrate Gay Pride.
We apologize for the delay in editing the petition to the Vatican we thought would be updated by Thursday. Will have that to you all shortly. In the meantime, do share this with other like-minded friends, family members, any priests and pastors you know, and Boston archdiocesan officials.
Fr. Roger J. Landry
The Anchor
Editorial
July 15, 2011
For the last two weeks, we’ve been examining some of the larger issues that have been raised by the controversy over a Mass at St. Cecilia’s in Boston to welcome those who celebrate gay pride. We’ve mentioned that those with same-sex attractions deserve and need the full and authentic pastoral care of the Church. Those who are “gay” — meaning those who celebrate sexual activity and culture based on same-sex attractions —are in even greater need of the full teaching of the Catholic Church, since in addition to the normal need for pastoral accompaniment and assistance in resisting temptations they also are vulnerable to severe attacks against the faith, considering that gay orthodoxy involves the rejection of Biblical and magisterial teaching on sexual morality and marriage, and therefore the denial of the authority of Scripture and of the Church.
Central to the Church’s full and authentic pastoral care of those with same-sex attractions is the assistance to live a chaste life. When mention is made of this call to chastity, some in the gay movement shriek with exasperated incredulity, as if chastity were a death sentence to a loveless life or, worse, some type of medieval castration ceremony executed in subterranean Vatican dungeons. Chastity, however, is the precondition for any real love.
The reason why chastity is often looked at as a curse rather than a cure is because it is not often understood, lived or preached. Even among clergy, religious and catechists, chastity is regularly confused with continence (abstinence from sexual activity) or celibacy (the state of being unmarried). When the Catechism emphasizes that “all Christ’s faithful are called to lead a chaste life in keeping with their particular states of life,” and that “married people are called to live conjugal chastity,” many married couples are left scratching their heads, wondering how they can be both “chaste” and start a family. The reason for the confusion likely stems from the fact that when term “chastity” is most often used, it’s employed in the context of the sexual education of teenagers (who are called to continence in chastity) or in the description of the promises or vows professed by priests and religious (who are called to celibate continence in chastity). The confusion points to the urgency and importance for all in the Church to understand what chastity is and how all the baptized — married couples, singles, priests, religious, those with same-sex attractions and opposite-sex attractions —are called to it no matter what their state of life.
Blessed Pope John Paul II, both prior to and during his papacy, has provided the clearest, deepest, most practical and most enlightening articulation of what the virtue of chastity is. In his 1960 work, “Love and Responsibility,” he wrote that chastity is the moral habit that raises one’s attractions to another to the dignity of that person as a whole. There is a temptation — which we see in lust in general and in pornography in particular — to “reduce” another to the values of the body or, more specifically, to the erogenous zones. There is, moreover, the further temptation to “use” another — either intentionally in one’s mind or physically through his or her body — for one’s own sensual or emotional gratification; many people in our culture consensually use each other sexually in this way. This mutual utilitarianism, however, is not love, but the opposite of love. Harmonious egoisms or reciprocal narcissisms don’t lead to the formation of a loving “we,” but just two even-more-isolated egos. Love, rather, always seeks the true good of the other for the other’s sake. When a person loves genuinely, he is willing to sacrifice his pleasure or even his life for the one loved. Chastity makes this possible, because it is the virtue that trains a person’s vision as well as his will to keep his attraction to the other person up to the level of the person’s true good rather than “consume” the other to satisfy his sexual appetites.
In his papal catecheses on “Human Love in the Divine Plan,” popularly called the Theology of the Body, Pope John Paul II went even further in his teaching on chastity. He described that the virtue of chastity isn’t so much bound principally to the virtue of temperance — the virtue that helps us to master our appetites rather than be mastered by them — but to the virtue of piety. Piety is the habit that helps us to revere others according to their true dignity, according to the image of God in them. St. Paul wrote to husbands and wives, “Be subordinate to each other out of reverence for Christ” (Eph 5:21, calling them to recognize and revere Christ in each other and mutually lay down their lives for each other out of love for the Lord they recognize dwelling in the other. Linked to piety, chastity helps us to see the other as sacred subject instead of a sexual object, to treat the other with reverence rather than randiness.
Blessed Pope John Paul II’s insights help us better to see why all of us in the Church, no matter our state of life, are called to chastity.
Husbands and wives are called to chastity in their marriage. This means that they reverence the other as a sacred gift, raise their attractions to the level of their spouse’s genuine good (including, obviously, the good of the soul) and see the other as created in God’s image, fully accepting the paternal meaning of a man’s masculinity or the maternal meaning of the woman’s femininity, In simple terms, their love is meant to be holy, not horny. Lusting after each other — what Jesus called “adultery in the heart” — is, therefore, a desecration of the other in one’s intentions. Sexual practices that treat one’s spouse as an actor in a pornographic film are likewise totally inconsistent with the love one’s spouse deserves. The use of contraception, which makes sexual pleasure — rather than true openness to God, to the other, and to the life-giving potential of love — the goal of spousal sexual union, corrodes rather than makes love, because using another for one’s own ends is contrary to sacrificing oneself for the other’s true good.
Likewise all those who are unmarried are called to chastity. Pornography, masturbation, fornication, oral sex and other practices are inconsistent with one’s or another’s genuine good, accepting the other in his or her totality, and treating oneself and others with the reverence befitting a temple of the Holy Spirit. Pornography or porno-vision is the opposite of chastity, abstracting a person’s sexual values from the person’s overall good. Fornication takes advantage of another to whom one has not made a total commitment for one’s pleasure. Same-sex activity rejects the meaning of the masculinity or femininity and the natural ordering toward the gift of life. When there’s no real openness to God and to life, when the other is treated as a sexual object rather than a sacred subject, when there’s no commitment to the total person and good of the other, there’s can be no real love in this type of “making love,” whether among people of the same sex or opposite sexes. Symbiotic self-indulgence is light years away from the expression in body language of the one-flesh union of mutual self-gifts brought about by God in the marriage of a man and one woman, which is the only proper moral context for love-making to be truly loving.
Can those with same-sex attractions truly love each other? Absolutely. The Church by no means is condemning those with same-sex attractions to a loveless life; the question is what practices will be consistent with genuine love and the objective good of the people involved. The Church teaches that those of the same-sex can clearly exercise the love of friendship (philia) in which the other becomes like a second self. The Church teaches that they certainly can — and are called to — have true Christian love (agape) toward each other, a willingness to sacrifice themselves and even die to themselves and their pleasures for the other’s true good. But the Church stresses that they need to ensure the romantic attractions (eros) they have for each other do not damage the one they love by opposing or destroying the love of agape and philia. For this they need chastity, which helps them raise their romantic attractions up to the sacred dignity of the person, which is violated by same-sex sexual activity.
Why is this message of chastity for those with same-sex attractions and everyone else so seldom heard? Some priests seem reluctant to preach the message because, sadly, either they’re not living chastely themselves or they erroneously understand and experience chastity as a deprivation from which they desire to spare others. Many lay people are disinclined to call those with same-sex attractions to chastity because they’re not practicing it either and don’t want to seem hypocritical in calling others to live what they themselves aren’t living. Others, misunderstanding chastity, think that it will relegate those with same-sex attractions to a “loveless life,” rather than provide the conditions for the possibility of any true love through the integration of eros consistent with philia and agape. If, however, we’re ever going to help individuals learn how to love (agape) others as Christ has loved us and assist them to discover a love that saves and leads to true and lasting happiness, we need to rediscover and repropose with enthusiasm the virtue of chastity, and help them to live it.
There is a group called Courage, founded in 1980 by New York Cardinal Terrence Cooke and Father John Harvey, which is dedicated to helping those with same sex attractions live chastely — through prayer and dedication, genuine Christian friendship and fellowship, mutual support and good example. Not only do we need more Courage chapters in every diocese, but the whole Church needs to have the courage and charity to become a worldwide Courage chapter to help those with same-sex attractions (and everyone else) purify and raise erotic attractions to the level of their loved one’s true good — out of reverence for God and for the image of God in others. Anything short of this is not worthy of the Church founded by Christ to lead us to holiness. Anything short of this full proclamation of the Gospel of chastity is not true pastoral care.
I am concerned about Courage locally. A friend of mine who is gay was taken under the Courage wing a decade ago, and what I’ve learned from this person is that, at this in this case, there is a reliance in counseling on a creaky neo-Freudianism that the Church would otherwise be wary of. To put it bluntly, the silly theory of causation of the distant-father, clinging-mother for men, et cet. (which can easily be inverted and make even more plausible sense – a father who distances himself from a son he perceives as gay, et cet, so it’s a really creaky theory, which is why it’s generally been abandoned); worse still, this person has been encouraged to blame parents, et cet. And then I am aware that there’s a dimension of Courage that has focused on gender conformity behaviors that have little to do with Christ and more about a secular conception of things. Anyway, what I’ve seen makes me skeptical of an uncritical embrace of the Courage apostolate here.
Percy, I suggest that you would get a much more realistic view of the work of Courage if you could attend the Courage Conference that is being held from Aug. 4-Aug.7 at the University of St. Mary of the Lake,Mundelein,IL. It would be worth every penny you spend to attend! You would meet so many men and women who have changed their lives by the grace of God. Their devotion to the heart of Christ who mercifully has helped them to rise out of their former bondage which tied them to a degrading ,desperate,demeaning life of lust, is a view that you appear to have not had a chance to experience.
I only wish that Cardinal O’Malley would make it possible for priests and some parishioners to attend these conferences to see for themselves the true work of Courage.
As it is now in the Boston Archdiocese, there has been so much influence in support of the way of New Ways Ministry, Dignity, and now the Rainbow Ministry, that news of any person who seeks the way of Courage is given a very false view of what transpires at Courage meetings. The idea of living in a chaste manner is totally ridiculed by these false groups that call themselves “Catholic”. Yes, they try to paint the way of Courage as “creaky neo-Freudianism” lumping the many individual men and women into caricatures, rather than seeing each one as an individual who is striving to live according to God’s plan for human love.
When more priests in the Boston Archdiocese get involved in the work of Courage, you will see that I’m telling the truth. I’ve attended around 20 Courage Conferences but ,due to the need for chemo treatments at Dana Farber, i cannot go this year. I hope, for a change, that Cardinal O’Malley will send some priests to the Courage conference since very few of the priests in the Boston Archdiocese have any knowledge and experience in the way of Courage.
Information about the conference is available on the Courage website.
“If one has the spirit of God, chastity is not a troublesome and humiliating burden, but a joyful affirmation.” -Josemaria Escriva de la Balaguer.
By the grace of God, I live a chaste life. And there are many priests, religious and laity who do so as well.
But even those of us who do live a chaste life with the help of the Lord Jesus often rebel in other ways. Some do so by taking in more food than their body requires. Others fill the perceived void by accumulating “things”: Books, CD’s, DVD’s etc. It can be anything. And then chastity is not being perfectly lived.
We are all called to deny ourselves, pick up our cross and follow the Lord Jesus. The cross is folly to a hurting world. But to us, it is salvation. We know that it is only by dying to ourselves that we can truly find life.
When St. Francis stripped himself of everything and stood naked in the square, the Bishop covered him with his cloak. Surely something to ponder on.
Nice fervorino, Paul; however, I think you’re making chastity for this conversation a little too nebulous.
Eating too much is gluttony, accumulating too much falls can fall under the sin of avarice but certainly not lust as opposed to chastity. Religious correctly profess three vows in professing their love for God: poverty, chastity, and obedience.
And I have my doubts whether Saint Francis stripped himself stark naked in public. That would have been against modesty—a virtue closer to chastity than fasting or forgoing material possessions.
Filling the void with apocalyptic thinking is also another avoidance mechanism.
The definition of “apocalyptic” (adj,) is “writing prophesying a cataclysm in which evil forces are destroyed”(Webster’s Dictionary). In referring to this,are you referring to the end of the world at the second coming of Christ? As today’s Gospel relates, at that time the “chaff will be separated from the wheat”. Is it an “avoidance mechanism” for anyone to hope they will be” gathered with the wheat”, thus united with God in heaven? This is our hope as we strive to live according to God’s plan for human love. As Fr. Landry points out in his 3rd article, this is what is desired by those who choose the way of Courage.
Percy, do you object to that? If so,why?
Alice
Obsession with things that are taken as flags of imminent or nearly imminent parousia is not the Gospel way, however. Jesus deliberately freed his followers from that kind of obsession.
Percy, where did you get the idea that i was “obsessing with things that are taken as flags of imminent or nearly imminent parousia”?? Wow! That’s an off-the-wall assumption!! Believe me, with the needs of my large family, I’m focused on their needs, not on any “imminent parousia”!! Please don’t make assumptions that you have no way of verifying.
I don’t think you understand what Paul is saying Michael Thomas. But I’m not surprised that your critical of him. Paul is criticized whenever he comes here. A curious fact.
By the way, you’re wrong about Francis. He did in fact strip himself as he distanced himself from his father’s wealth.
We read here: http://www.asimplehouse.org/assisi.php
“In a public display, Francis stripped naked on the steps of the Cathedral, and handed his father the clothes. Thus, Francis declared himself entirely for God, and the bishop covered his nakedness with his robe showing the protection of Mother Church.”
Ann, it’s par for the course here. Envy being what it is: a diabolical sin. Michael is mistaken. Vows are praiseworthy because they unite the one taking the vow by a new bond with God. Actions performed under vow become also acts of religion. Vows give to God not only a single morally good action; they dedicate a person’s will to the Almighty.
Poverty, chastity and obedience are linked together. So I can see what Paul is saying. Someone who feels “I’m giving up sexual relations by being chaste so I deserve compensation elsewhere: material possessions, power, fame etc is not really embracing chastity. Not really.
That is not chastity joyfully lived.
Envy, Roger. How so? This is really a far fetched accusation.
Should religious stop taking three vows and lump everything under one?
And again, I don’t think Saint Francis took off his underwear in public as it would be immodest to do so.
Please keep the focus of your comments on the post.
Though a google search on: st francis stripped naked
returned a number of references validating the earlier comment, whether St. Francis was or was not completely naked in public need not be resolved here, and I’d ask that you guys stop discussing or disputing that point further.
Here is a website which says essentially the same thing:
http://www.communityofstjohn.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71:vows&catid=53:faqs&Itemid=49
“The spirit of poverty eliminates everything that might prevent closeness to Jesus. Thus it is the guardian of the spirit of virginity.”
I don’t know… maybe I missed it?
I think we all would have been better off if Fr. Landry stuck to the first editorial. I think it would have been far more helpful to offer insight into and teaching on concupiscence. Or perhaps the fact that 98% of Catholics use contraception and are in a state of mortal sin because of it.
Fr. Landry quotes JP2 “chastity is the moral habit that raises one’s attractions to another to the dignity of that person as a whole.” I’m not at all sure what that actually means but do know what this simple definition of chastity means:
sexual abstinence: the condition or practice of abstaining from sex on moral grounds
Fr. Landry also offers “In simple terms, their love is meant to be holy, not horny”
Better said would be:
The only sexual contact the Church recognizes is between married people and it should be life giving, life affirming and procreative. All other is sin.
I would suggest, with all due respect to JP2 “Theology of the Body” is so esoteric and cumbersome its use as a church document is minimal.
To The Last Catholic Boston- Actually studying The Theology of the Body is the most effective way to discover why God’s plan for human love is the most reassuring way to anticipate union with God for eternity! The Boston Archdiocesan parishes were supposed to be offering study groups to help parishioners understand The Theology of the Body. I was able to attend a study group at St. Joseph’s parish in Needham. It was led by Karen Morin. One of the attendees understood it so well that he was able to bring the “light’ of this work to the Needham School Committee board when he was a member. He was able to challenge many of the secular assumptions held by other members who came from a purely secular approach in deciding what should be taught to the students regarding sex education. It is unfortunate that there aren’t more people who can do that!
The Diocesan Director in charge of the study groups is Marianne Luthin who can be contacted at 508-651-3100. Her office is at 5 Wilson St.,Natick ( the old convent for St. Patrick’s Church). The study groups were a tremendous help!
Alice,
I’m glad you liked Theology of the Body. I am a happy Catholic married father with numerous children if I can ever get the time to paint my house, I will spend my extra time watching it dry rather than contemplating Theology of the Body.
“Actually studying The Theology of the Body is the most effective way to discover why God’s plan for human love is the most reassuring way to anticipate union with God for eternity!”
Most effective way? I say Rubbish!
Hold a baby in your arms. Kiss a dieing elderly person on the forehead.
Use your copy of Theology of the Body as a door stop.
Sorry, Joe. I can see that here is not the place to discuss this. We were going far afield. When dealing with homosexuals, it’s probably best to stick to simple and precise definitions of what constitutes chastity, as did the Last Catholic above. You might not want to say to them, “Now, to be chaste you have to stop overeating, give up your CD collection and do what Saint Francis did.”
You’re an idiot. You just don’t make sense.
Many agree, I’m sure, but you are giving yourself away, Paul. And had you attended the True Rite on Sunday most likely you would have put your thoughts a little differently for the Gospel was from Matthew 5. The pertinent part is verse 22.
I’ll second LCIB’s comment re “Theology of the Body.” It’s not clear that it would be good for those who are weak in chastity. TOB has been widely interpreted, even resulting in gnostic and esoteric interpretations by its conservative adherents and advocates. If men who are supposedly strong in the Faith get bamboozled by these musings of a celibate man preoccupied with sex, then what would become of the fallen? As an analogy, would you recommend “theology of the beverage” for recovering alcoholics, i.e., lead them to focus their minds on the very drink that let them astray? No. Based on the historical penances imposed for this vice, it is clear that a rigorous denial of self, assiduous prayer, and constant supervision are essential.
How quickly this web site gets to the point where it is guilty of the very thing it condemns. It is not your position to “correct” the Holy Father. You’re just not up to the task. Pope John Paul II was a brilliant theologian, philosopher, poet, mystic and best-selling author.
And you are, well, none of those things.
Like the Unniites, you believe yourself wiser than the Pope. In reality, you’re a mental furball.
Don’t blame the website (Joe Sacerdo) for this furball’s posts. Where were your accusations when Joe let Unni-ite trolls go on and on?
The issue at hand is how best to cure one who repents of this vice. St. Basil the Great put him in chains, had him whipped, and kept him under constant surveillance for awhile. After that, the offender was never allowed to be around younger men, ever, and was kept under the charge of elder monks.
Frankly, I don’t think we take this vice seriously enough these days. It’s no surprise that it flourishes.
Rick,
Cough this one up. It is not a requirement to be a JP2 groupy in order to be Catholic. I never attended popa-palooza and I consider St. Pius X to be more of a spiritual father than the Koran kisser.
have at:
http://thetheologyofthebody.com/
It is a shame the writings St. John of the Cross do not have the same mass appeal or marketing.