my response to them. My response might be tedious. However, it is necessary, in dealing
with broad-brushed and specious argument, to delve in depth what is unmindfully enshrouded
in words belonging to another tradition.
Quotes from Mr. Amodeo's article are in yellow; my responses are in red.
... it appears that some people ... want LGBT people out of the Catholic Church. In reflecting on this, I can't help but witness the call for LGBT Catholics to stay in the pew.
With what attitude of mind and heart are LGBT people to stay in the pew? Should they stay as sinners like the Publican in Scripture and with the attitude that all Christian folk should have, crying from their heart "Lord, be merciful to me a sinner" and including within that consciousness of sin those times when they have in thought, word or deed abridged the commandment against unchastity by engaging in acts of homosexual sexual intimacy.
Or does Mr. Amodeo mean that persons who are in committed same-sex relationships that involve sexual intimacy should stay in the pew while understanding that their union with their same-sex partner is good and holy and blessed of God? If the former, fine. If the latter, the infallible moral teaching of the Church is that this is intrinsically evil and can in no way be tolerated.
At its core, the Church is open to all people without exception.
Anyone can enter a Catholic Church if they conduct themselves properly. But is the Church open to all people without exception? I think Mr. Amodeo means by the word "open," that the Church is solicitous for the salvation of all. In that sense, yes, the Church is open to all without exception. Membership in the Church, the Mystical Body of Christ, is not even precluded by persons being in the state of mortal sin. But the Sacrament of the Eucharist is not available to such persons and no one so ill-disposed should approach to receive the Eucharist. Likewise, even while affirming the primacy of conscience, a person who is openly and actively opposed to the solemn teaching of the Church in matters of Faith and Morals, ought not approach to receive the Eucharist, the very Sign of Unity of Faith.
...gay Catholics?
Why use the word "gay?" What does a Catholic mean by that word? The Church solemnly maintains that homosexuality is a disorder and the acts thereof, objectively gravely sinful. What does the word "gay" mean over against the Church's teaching?
Although some argue that the Magisterium offers a clear teaching on homosexuality, I would argue that its teaching is ambiguous and contradictory.
I anticipated that an argument would follow showing the ambiguity of and contradiction within the Magisterium's teaching on homosexuality. I was disappointed.
Consider for instance the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), which calls for "Every sign of unjust discrimination" in regards to gay and lesbian people to "be avoided" (CCC# 2358); however, the Church (with few exceptions) discriminates against celibate gay men in its consideration of applicants for the Catholic priesthood. Isn't this an unjust roadblock in one's discernment of God's will?
The problem with the above is the assumptions Mr. Amodeo is making. The Catechism clearly speaks of unjust discrimination. In America, at least, the word discrimination has come to mean prejudicial action against a group or person. This is not the sense it is used by the CCC. In the CCC it is qualified by the adjective unjust. Certainly every thoughtful person acknowledges that there are just discriminations. To be able to discriminate is to be able to see distinctions and to discriminate in the moral order is to be able to know right from wrong. It is a matter of discernment and as such comes under the virtue of prudence. First, it is known that the Church considers homosexuality to be an intrinsic disorder and homosexual acts to be, objectively, gravely immoral. So it is in keeping with the Church's constant teaching concerning homosexuality that She exclude from holy orders all those men who have a deep-seated homosexual orientation and those men who in fact believe that homosexuality is not a disorder at all. Mr. Amodeo does not give an argument for ambiguity or contradiction by this example. He makes an assumption about discrimination and finally asks a rhetorical question. Where is the argumentation?
The ambiguity continues with regards to the Church's view on same-sex partnerships. The Catechism refers to "homosexual acts" as "objectively disordered" (CCC# 2357, 2358, 2359), but does not explore the question of a committed union between same-sex persons.
If the Church has clearly stated that homosexual acts are objectively disordered and "Under no circumstances can they be approved" and in CCC2357 gives a summary of Her reasons, why would the Church "explore the question of a committed union between same-sex persons" ? If as the Church teaches, marriage is only between a man and a woman and persons with a homosexual orientation are call to chastity, where lies the continuation of ambiguity ? Two men or two women, living chaste Christian lives are not forbidden to live their lives in common. However, I don't believe that Mr. Amodeo is referring to such a situation. He is clearly referring to a union which is expressed sexually and this can in no way be approved. There is no ambiguity about this teaching at all.
The next paragraph in Mr. Amodeo's article, I find extremely convoluted. It begins:
In what appears to be a response to the Catechism's lack of discussion on same-sex relationships, a 2003 document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith explained that "Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil."
Where does this appearance as to reason for the CDF's comments come from? The CCC is not a place for the detailed discussion of disorders. As to the CDF's statement, it again underlines the complete lack of ambiguity in the Church's teaching on homosexuality and homosexual acts. Mr. Amodeo continues:
As evidenced by the Catechism and the 2003 document, the Magisterium's focus on sex and its failure to witness homosexual relationships in their entirety limits the Church's own witness to the genuine good that is found in same-sex relationships -- including in many instances the raising of a family.
The focus on sex is precisely the right focus because it is in the sexual expression of this disorder that sin is objectively present. While goods may be had in such relationships, such goods are overshadowed by the sexual nature of the relationship nor do such goods compensate for the depravity of the sexual expression. Moreover, the Church has been clear that adoption by homosexual couples and the rearing of children in such an environment is itself a grave matter wanting in basic justice to the children.
The notion that the Church refers to same-sex relationships as "evil" represents an illogical presumption in light of the Church's teaching and raises serious questions.
What's illogical? Such relationships, expressed sexually, are evil; that is they lack the good that ought to be present and can only be present in conjugal relationships between a man and a woman.
Can a God-given trait be evil or, for that matter, would God call two people to a love that is evil?
Mr. Amodeo assumes that this homosexual orientation is a God-given trait. It is no such thing, any more than any disorder is God-given. All evil that comes about is allowed by God's permissive will for the sake and benefit of those who love God. Evil is permitted in view of the dignity of man to freely choose God. Being free to choose good, to choose God; to lodge in man's nature such freedom uncoerced by God, risks the possibility of man doing evil and choosing to be opposed to God. While God calls us to love one another, God calls us to do so within His Own Love for us. God does not call men to express their love to other men sexually; in fact He forbids it. It is not love nor is it the expression of love within the love of God for one man or one woman to express themselves sexually with someone of their own gender.
In light of these questions and what I view as the Church's contradictory teachings on homosexuality, it is apparent that the Church needs to discern how to live out its pastoral mission with regard to LGBT Catholics in a way that considers the whole person and the beauty found in an LGBT relationship.
You have not pointed to any ambiguities or contradictions in the Church's teachings on homosexuality. The whole person is considered by the Church. CCC 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.
This call to exercise a loving pastoral approach is not something new for the Church. For instance, "Always Our Children," a 1997 pastoral letter published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops...
To quote Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz:Although this document was evidently "approved" by the Administrative Committee of that conference, and it would seem the correct procedures outlined in conference rules were followed, it should be made clear that the document was composed without any input from the majority of the American Catholic bishops, who were given no opportunity whatever to comment on its pastoral usefulness or on its contents...I believe one would be justified in asserting that in this case, flawed and defective procedures, badly in need of correction and reform, resulted in a very flawed and defective document. [cf. http://www.wf-f.org/alwaysourchldspr98.html ]
By staying in the Church and living our lives, we are expressing our belief in the inclusive message of Christ; we are choosing to ask, seek and knock with the hope that one day "the door will be opened" (Luke 11:10).
Jesus also said: "Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and he who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for my sake will find it." (Matt 10: 34-39)
