Another Advocate

Readings for the Sixth Sunday of Easter, Cycle A 

In Saint John’s Gospel, Jesus referred to “another Advocate,” specifically the Holy Spirit, whom the Father has sent into the world to reinforce the deeds and words of Jesus. The Holy Spirit is the soul of Christ’s Mystical Body, the Church; He is the Church’s living memory, her source of both challenge and encouragement. Jesus curiously says, “The world cannot accept [the Spirit], because it neither sees nor knows him.” People who are not concerned with anything beyond the material, the scientifically verifiable, would have no part with the Holy Spirit. Their church is little more than a soulless zombie, or perhaps a blob that assumes the shape of its container.

The Spirit is the “Advocate” (in Greek, Paraclete): One who is literally called to a person’s side, like a defense attorney. Followers of Christ, sons and daughters of the Church, need this Advocate to help us become witnesses to our faith. Younger Catholics should remember the official definition of Confirmation that the Bishop asked them: “Confirmation is the sacrament in which the Holy Spirit comes to us in a special way to join us more closely to Jesus and His Church, and to seal and strengthen us as Christ’s witnesses.” 

To riff upon our Bishop’s motto, the Spirit invests us with holiness (union with the Lord and others) and mission (service to the Lord and others); He delivers them in the form of His seven gifts, and we are known to have them in our exemplification of His twelve fruits. (Don’t know what the gifts and fruits of the Holy Spirit are? Look them up!)

If we’re baptized and confirmed Catholics, we ought to know and treasure who we are and what we believe, and we ought to be willing to stand up for it in the face of opposition. Last week our Commonwealth joined numerous other states in permitting same-sex marriages. This decision has been met at once with thunderous applause and thunderous outcry; but the most noteworthy response has been silence. 

Most Catholics know, and some are, persons who experience attraction to the same sex. Few, I suspect, know the Church’s teachings enough to distinguish attraction from action (attraction of itself is not sinful, while action is); and fewer still are prepared to defend those teachings. They might consider the Church’s position a condemnation of our brothers and sisters—or of themselves—but fail to recognize the deepest truths at stake; or, however dimly they may recognize the truths, they are afraid to speak of them for fear of being considered a “hater,” “insensitive” and “unenlightened.” Understandably they may not want to be labeled a “hypocrite,” much less get roped in with a Church who has endured the same criticism, often justifiably. Or they may feel ill equipped against the prevailing arguments, with their appeals to “love,” “equality,” and the like. 

In so many respects, as we get to know human beings and their stories, we find that we can no longer hide behind positions. We begin to love persons while not condoning their sinful actions. We are moved to look more squarely at our own lives, to notice where we also have some conversion and growth ahead of us. A comfortable Catholicism fails to satisfy, because a Fire has been lit beneath us!

We should be grateful for our Catholic faith, and we should be ready to offer people “a reason for the hope” within us; but only if we call upon our Advocate to help us affirm the truth clearly and lovingly. Having done our best with that, the results are not our business.

Love Letters, Straight from the Heart (of the Church)

The Scriptures of the 13th Sunday in Ordinary Time (Year C) speak today about the resolution and fidelity needed to follow God’s will; they also hint at the interior freedom that one gains from the commitment of discipleship. Providentially these readings arrive in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision with regard to permitting same-sex marriage. For now, individual states will be free to redefine marriage if they wish. (One by one, I suspect, they will.)

I am not speaking about these things, as it were, “on the defensive.” It's always worthwhile to review and reaffirm the Church’s splendid, comprehensive vision of marriage and family life. Yes, we have to include the particular choices that the vision forbids; but most of all, we present the great dignity that the vision affirms even as it challenges us and challenges the culture. If I were to become a “one-trick pony” in the pulpit or on this blog, the Church’s marriage and family teachings might be the trick to pick; after all, most people are called to marriage and parenthood. But even these teachings appear  brightest and best against the backdrop of the entire Catholic Faith.

Speaking of which, I received a letter the other day. It wasn’t a personal letter; it was an online article addressed “to our priests and bishops.” Emily Stimpson, a freelance Catholic writer, was treating the subject of “What Catholics Need Now.” In light of the Supreme Court decision, as well as other present-day maladies and deficits, Stimpson asked priests and bishops to “step up [our] game” in presenting the authentic Catholic faith in preaching, governance, architecture, and music, so as to mobilize the Catholic faithful to appreciate and use their voice in the public square. Priests must lead their people in these times of persecution, by modeling and encouraging steadfast truth and steadfast love.

Stimpson isn’t the only writer or speaker to have done this. In a comment to her letter, another Catholic writer referenced an article he had written last September, which I had read and upon which I had commented. These two writers take on different tones and make different suggestions, but they (and others of their ilk) share several characteristics: 

• Love for the Lord and His Church
• A desire for truth, justice, and charity to prevail
• Great and justifiable concern with the present state of affairs; and
• Appreciation for the role of the clergy in addressing the Catholic faithful on contemporary matters

They are not unlike the prophets of the Old Testament. Some of them may even resemble James and John, the “Sons of Thunder” in the Gospel, who’d have liked to call down fire from heaven on the people who aren’t in our camp.

Jesus rejects that proposition, but in so doing He does not reject His prophetic role; instead, He bids the disciples to move on to another village. That is to say, they must continue their mission; and so must we. The Catholic Church has always maintained the same teachings without regard for the shifting sands of the culture, yet it is fair to say that the past fifty years have witnessed the diminution of the Catholic voice (both from Catholic laypeople and from your clergy). The fear of persecution cannot inhibit us Catholics from saying and doing what we believe. Now, you may say, “What if we don’t all agree on what we believe?” You know, we Catholics! Yes...well, not even Jesus would make people agree with Him, but it didn’t stop Him from speaking, heedless of the cost.

The Church’s teachings on marriage and family have been impugned at every level of government and in every corner of society. We can boil them down to the word "chastity." We are considered ridiculous for mentioning that very word, let alone for commencing to explain and encourage it. 

But here goes: 

Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and spiritual world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman” (CCC 2337).

Outside of marriage, the “complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman,” sexual activity results in disintegration—breakdown: the breakdown of the individual and, in time, the breakdown of the culture. Do you notice anything like that going on?

When it comes to our lust (not to mention our pride, anger, envy, gluttony, avarice, or sloth), it is not easy to subject our tumultuous emotions to the higher powers of reason and will, enlightened by faith and sustained by God’s grace. But we must, if we want to be free—even if it takes a lifetime.

It's what we were made for, said St. Paul today to the Galatians: “For freedom Christ set us free; so stand firm and do not submit again to the yoke of slavery” (5:1).

Whatever your opinion on the Paula Deen situation, anyone can recognize how the condemnation of racial slurs sheds light on the meaning of words and the meaning of the human person. The past of slavery will never be forgotten, nor should it be. But the human race also ought to experience outrage at our continued slavery to sin in its many forms. It should move us all to greater prayer and vigilance, lest we keep grabbing for the shackles. 

Saint Paul reminds us of the great commandment to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev 19:18). But we do not really love ourselves, do we? Do we even know what that really means…what it could mean? 

Lord—here and everywhere, teach us what it means!

"The Logical and Appropriate Next Step"

A friend sent me the link to an article from the blog of GLAAD (The Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination) concerning the election of the first openly gay bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), only four years after the ELCA lifted a ban on clergy in same-sex relationships.  The executive director of Extraordinary Lutheran Ministries, Amalia Vagts, has called the ordination of Rev. Dr. R. Guy Erwin "simply the logical and appropriate next step for our denomination following the 2009 elimination of policies precluding pastors in committed same-gender relationships."

The above-linked article refers to "same-gender relationships," suggesting a more-than-semantic difference between "sex" and "gender," especially in light of the acronym LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender), and another expansive--and ambiguous--moniker.

The trajectory of the ELCA decision seems to parallel the movement of the Episcopal Church that most notably included the ordination of the Rev. V. Gene Robinson in 2003, as well as subsequent refusals to place a moratorium on the ordination of openly gay clergy.

Mathew Block over at First Things has noted the ELCA's membership decline since '09, in favor of at least two breakaway Lutheran communions. We already know about the "Anglican Use" that the Catholic Church has formed for disaffected C of Es; can we expect a similar Catholic expression for Lutherans who are declaring "Here I can't stand"?

I discern a parallel with the recent decision of the Boy Scouts of America to permit openly same-sex attracted boys while maintaining a ban on openly same-sex attracted adult leaders.

The BSA still considers any sort of sexual activity as unacceptable for youth.  It is likely that some same- and opposite-sex attracted scouts are sexually active; one may presume that no "witch-hunt" sort of investigations take place, and perhaps the only circumstance in which the no-sex policy would or could be enforced might be, say, a camping trip, in which any kind of hi-jinks is summarily addressed.  Eventually, a scout who is (same- or opposite-) sexually active turns 18 and no longer can identify as a boy scout.  If he wishes to serve as an adult leader, he applies and is likely accepted without any questioning or revelation of his sexual activity.

I predict that the proposed "two-tier system" of openly same-sex attracted boys and quietly same-sex attracted adults will soon be found intolerable, to the effect of the total lifting of the ban.  Perhaps the decision will occur by volunteer vote in the manner of the previous process, but it will happen in any case.  It is "the logical and appropriate next step."

Will we see increases among scout-alternative groups, such as can be found among several evangelical denominations and the Catholic Church? Girls and young women have, for example, the American Heritage Girls.  Will these organizations ever enjoy the notoriety and fiscal support of their revered counterparts? Until they do, BSA-chartering organizations like churches will not quickly pull up their tent stakes, unless BSA policy changes permit no other option.

+ + + + +

I deem it necessary to summarize the Catechism's already succinct presentation on homosexuality (CCC 2357-2359):

Sexual practices between persons of like sex are depraved and "intrinsically disordered" because of the lack of affective and sexual complementarity and because of the intrinsic resistance to the generation of new life. However the orientation comes about and however it has expressed itself, it is "objectively disordered," but persons so attracted are due no less compassion and should not become objects of discrimination. The Church encourages them, through every available human and divine help (prayer, friendship, sacraments) to practice chastity and openness to God's will. Thus they can and should approach Christian perfection.

In quotes I have retained the words intrinsically and objectively from the original paragraphs. I understand these words to mean "factually; unavoidably; independent of my, or anyone else's, thoughts and feelings." We live in an age that does not accept any judgment. One must not forget that the intellect is for judgment, for affirming the truth or falsity of a proposition after subjecting it to the objective truth to determine whether or not it conforms.

But the term "judgment" has come to mean "personal condemnation." The Church doesn't support personal condemnation, either; but to the modern mind, the true sense of the term judgment (determination of conformity or nonconformity to objective truth) isn't used because the modern mind does not acknowledge objective truth. Only personal condemnation remains, and to the modern mind, the Church does this in great measure.

The "objective truth" in question consists in the other word retained in quotes from the original paragraphs: disordered. Now this is the sore spot. I can already hear it: "How dare you call me disordered?!" Nobody has called same-sex attracted persons disordered, but rather the inclination, or attraction, towards members of the same sex. This inclination simply cannot be put on a par with opposite-sex attraction, because opposite-sex attraction involves a physical, emotional, and spiritual complementarity that does not exist between persons of the same sex. There is no "alternative lifestyle" to the communion of persons that joins a man and a woman in total, faithful, permanent, and fruitful self-giving--what, from time immemorial, has been known as matrimony; what, since the time of the Church, has become known as sacramental marriage.

"But that's what you say!"

After countless times around the block, we always reach an impasse. One fears that nothing further can be said or done, except to witness the unfurling of each "logical and appropriate next step," according to what modernity calls logic and propriety.

One Oath, One Law, One Liturgy

As the Chartering Organization Representative for our parish Boy Scout units, I subscribe to Scouting magazine.  In the most recent hard-copy issue, I read that, as of 2015, all BSA programs (Boy Scouts, Cub Scouts, and Venturing Crew) will be using the same Oath and Law, namely the one used by the Boy Scouts.  According to Bob Scott, senior innovation manager for the BSA, this initiative has been undertaken in order to standardize the language that expresses the organizational mission.

The decision was finalized last October, but the magazine has waited until the current issue to publicize it.  True to the modern M.O., the news was announced in a more timely fashion, specifically on the day of the decision, on Scouting's official adult blog.  The combox hosted an conversation about the changes; it reflected a diversity of opinions which, according to Mr. Scott, have been giving way to consensus.

And life involves contention.
Said Heraclitus, Πόλεμος πάντων μὲν πατήρ ἐστί ("Strife is the father of all things").

The decision was made after considerable reflection and consultation.  Mr. Scott compared it to the Pledge of Allegiance, which first-graders continue to recite without likely understanding its lofty concepts.  It will fall to individual scouting units to engage in age-appropriate conversations about the concepts.

The Church's liturgy permits certain adaptations for congregations mostly made up of children, such as  hymnody and approved renderings of Holy Scripture.  In the second edition of the revised Roman Missal, we had three Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children.  These have been omitted in the recent edition.  I have heard that new Eucharistic Prayers were still on the drawing board, but I am not certain of their existence, let alone a prospective date of release.

As with the Church, I imagine that many members of scouting would have preferred to "leave well enough alone," while others would consider the current verbiage variations not to be "well enough."  Whether there has been a significant contingent eager for change in this matter, I do not know.

My investment in Scouting is not nearly as deep as my investment in the Church, but I recognize the positive influence that both bodies intend for, and enjoy among, their constituencies.  Both aim to form bodies and spirits fit for participation in the greater community.  The language used in corporate rituals has a formative impact upon the community.  While higher-level language may be lost upon many young listeners, it may well inspire the curious ones among them to seek deeper understanding.  That was the effect of the Sacred Liturgy upon me when I was young; and to think that the language has been kicked up a few notches since then!

Now I may have been a different case--a curious one, for sure--but I never complained about an inability to understand what I was hearing in the Liturgy.  That doesn't mean I actually understood it all, or fully understand it yet; but when it comes to the Church--a divine and human institution--I tend to yield to the wisdom of the words and of their origin, eager to grow in understanding and appreciation of both.

Perhaps the standardization of the Scout Oath and Law will prompt the younger boys to "seek the things that are above" (Col 3:1).  I acknowledge the temptation to doubt that today's children are concerned about such things.  Let the flourishing of the BSA and the Church testify to the urgent yet perennial hope that wisdom must never die.

+ + + + +

We will soon see the influence of the collaborative process on another pressing concern for the BSA: the conscious admission of same-sex attracted (SSA) scouts and leaders.  The current organization-wide review and revision process will culminate in a decision during its National Annual Meeting (22-24 May).  The Scouting blog has revealed the organization's proposed resolution to admit SSA youths to their units while continuing to ban SSA adults from leadership roles.  (The combox for this post has nearly four times the number of comments on the subject of the unified oath; as of this writing, the score is 1,151 to 316.  This reflects a similar preference among many Catholics for discussing "hot-button" moral topics over liturgical and doctrinal ones.)

In the media statement that accompanies the blog post, the BSA states: "The proposed resolution also reinforces that Scouting is a youth program, and any sexual conduct, whether heterosexual or homosexual, by youth of Scouting age is contrary to the virtues of Scouting."  Good to know.  I was just about to add, "Hard to enforce," but the statement contains nothing to enforce and the BSA (given the current climate and the sensitivity of the issue) won't likely attempt any enforcement.  The Church, for her part, doesn't have any sort of "police" either, when it comes to people's personal religious and moral conduct.  Because so much is left to the individual conscience, conscience formation remains vitally important.

Unlike the BSA, the Catholic Church is not a democracy.  Like his successors, the current pope will not (cannot!) make changes simply to suit modern sensibilities.  A great many "policies" are rooted in the divine law and/or natural moral law, which cannot change.  Practices that originate in ecclesiastical law may in fact be mutable, but very little in the Church admits of rapid review and revision; moreover, the process of review and revision does not hold everyone's opinion with equal weight.

On Anonymous Letters and Public Policy

Life in the ‘Kingdom of Whatever’ | Public Discourse

Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M.Cap., Archbishop of Philadelphia, has for many years been a the Church's champion in public life, challenging the unfaithful to become faithful, and challenging the faithful to become more faithful.  The Archbishop articulates the Church's uniquely comprehensive regard for human life that no single political party or candidate seems able to endorse.  He further traces the breakdown of the unity of matter and spirit that has given rise to every cultural malady--especially materialism and relativism.

I wonder how he has the time and energy to conduct daily archdiocesan business such as parish and school visitations, not to mention the Divine Office.  Minds of this caliber are a real treat, especially when they inhabit consecrated bodies.

A couple of weeks ago I received an anonymous letter from a parishioner who thought I was weighting political evaluation too heavily on abortion, to the neglect of the entire spectrum of life-respect.

I would say that I don't respond to anonymous letters, but I have no policy on responding to anonymous letters, because (sad to say?) I have received very few over the past ten years of preaching...this recent letter may be only the second.  I get very few comments on this blog, positive or negative--and very few hits!  I suspect that an increased number of comments results from (a) having many readers, (b) writing regularly, and (c) taking controversial stands on controversial topics.  A prominent priest-blogger recently told me that he attributes his success in part to his voluminous output and what he called his "edgy" posts.  This is a new relecture on Sirach 2:1, "My child, when you come to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for trials."  When you put yourself out there, boldly and often, it increases your risk of being noticed...and opposed.  (Ask Jesus!)

So my provisional "policy" has two points: 1. Look always for the truth in what the writer is saying, and respond to that, first mentally and only then (if at all) externally.  2. The value of an external response depends on whether the matter in question is the truth or only my opinion; the latter deserves little if any place in a liturgical homily, although a blog seems to be an acceptable venue if I make clear that the proposition is my opinion.

The anonymous writer was not correct in asserting that I instructed ("forced") people to vote for a particular political party or candidate and specifically "against the Democrats."  He or she incorrectly insinuated that I consider abortion and contraception the "only moral issues of the future...the only problems in the world."  He or she incorrectly attributed the source of my statement to "pop culture and the propaganda of [a major] news channel," as opposed to magisterial documents such as Evangelium Vitae, in which Blessed John Paul II  said:

by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops -- who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine -- I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

The preceding quote may well support what I did say in that homily, to wit, "How one can vote for a candidate that supports 'reproductive rights' is beyond me, and more important, beyond the Church, and even more important, beyond human reason."  If anything in that statement is contrary to the teachings of the Magisterium, I will retract it and offer a worthy substitute.  People may indeed have "reasons" to vote for such a candidate, but the conscious and willing endorsement of a pro-abortion candidate seems unacceptable by my reading of the above paragraph from Evangelium Vitae with its appeal to the natural law.

The same homily also noted the typical connection of support for abortion with support for same-sex marriage, embryonic stem-cell research, and contraception (government-mandated or not).  The only support available for that connection is the standard "Voter's Guide" furnished in most any Catholic newspaper.

Now I mention all of this after the election of such candidates on every stratum of government with the support of a majority of Catholic voters (q.v. for the incumbent U.S. President).  Enter Archbishop Chaput's article, one paragraph of which I would present in defense of my anonymous adversary's unrest:

Still, elections are tough times for serious Catholics. If we believe in the encyclical tradition—from Rerum Novarum to Evangelium Vitae; from Humanae Vitae to Caritas In Veritate—then we can’t settle comfortably in either political party. Catholics give priority to the right to life and the integrity of the family as foundation stones of society. But we also have much to say about the economy and immigration, runaway debt, unemployment, war and peace. It’s why the US bishops recently observed that “in today’s environment, Catholics may feel politically disenfranchised, sensing that no party and few candidates fully share our comprehensive commitment to human life and dignity.”

Maybe the writer belongs to a particular party, and devoutly so.  But, like the Archbishop, he or she referenced earlier papal encyclicals, to fortify the assertion that abortion isn't the only issue.  (It certainly wasn't en courant during the time of, say, Leo XIII, at the very least because it wasn't legal.)  Yes, the proponent of a truly Catholic social justice will be out of place, if that proponent does not overly identify with a particular party for reasons that once seemed acceptable if not praiseworthy in previous generations.  I would imagine that it's very hard for entrenched partisans to rethink their party affiliation, just as it is for staunch religionists to examine their religion's beliefs critically.

The issue today is the centuries-old divorce of faith and reason that has given rise to what Chaput calls the "culture of unbelief and...the inhuman politics that flows from it."  What is most disconcerting is the number of believers who have fallen prey to this culture and politics, in large part because of the suffocation caused by materialism.  The latter I define not merely as an undue attachment to "stuff," but also as the over- or under-emphasis of the value of the human body and what we do with it, in favor of an intentionally-vague "spirituality" that places subjectivity above objectivity--good intentions above good choices.