Syllogisms and Church Teaching
I see a lot of people blaming homosexuality for the horrible mess the Church is in right now. I think though this thinking is really skewed, understandably so, because of the nature of the abuse and flouting of Church Teaching. And I am completely orthodox on the Church's teachings on sex. So I in no way condone homosexual behavior. However, something is amiss here. I was hearkening back to to my days of formal logic. You know those syllogisms that go
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
I think the premise in a lot of people's arguments against men with same sex attraction goes like this:
All priests should be celibate
Homosexuals are incapable of being celibate
Therefore no homosexuals should become priests.
The flaw I see in this argument is that the Church asks those with same sex attraction to remain celibate whether they are priests or laity. If you are burdened with same sex attraction, you can't act on that attraction without committing sin. Is the Church asking the impossible? That hardly seems fair. Even St. Paul said that it was better to remain unmarried but if you can't then go ahead and get married. (Of course he also condemned unnatural sex between women and between men.) But what are we telling these people? You can't get married (and they can't actually - physically they can not perform what used to be called the marriage act which consummated the marriage.) So no marriage and yet we believe you can't be celibate. That's a ridiculous thing to tell people!
I think the argument being made by some is that living in the seminary with other men is too much of a temptation and therefore they should not become priests. And, given the state of seminaries now, keeping those with homosexual desires out, might be very prudent. However, I don't see this as an absolute.
I see it more like this:
All priests should be celibate
Not all homosexuals are capable of being celibate
Therefore, not all homosexuals should become priests.
But actually you can use this same syllogism and replace the word homosexual with heterosexual. It would be just as valid.
If I were someone saddled with same sex attraction (which I am not; I am a married 58 year old mother of five) and I was a man (again, I am not a man!) who was deeply religious and drawn to a life of service, I might think: well, I have to remain celibate anyway, and if I become a priest, maybe keeping Christ always at the front and center of my life in the deliberate and public way a priest does, I then can live a life of deep meaning and service and it will help keep me from sin.
But then the guy gets to the seminary and finds it is filled with landmines, not only are there other seminarians who are not becoming priests for the right reasons, the rectors and bishops and vocations directors are all using celibacy to cover up for their network of lust and abuse.
So then I have three choices:
Either I am so repulsed, I leave (I know a seminarian who did this)
I give in and become part of the network
I stand my ground and remain celibate in spite of the fact that I am gay.
I am willing to bet that there have been a significant number of priests in the last category.
The problem, it seems to me is: Power.
Corrupt, depraved people in power over seminaries.
These people deliberately set things up so they can get away with a lot of bad stuff. I keep wondering to myself, if this has been a problem for at least 1000 years why hasn't the Church come up with transparent policies a long, long time ago? Perhaps because the entire power structure of the Church attracts corrupt, depraved people who don't allow reform to take place. Not all in the hierarchy are corrupt or spineless, of course, but enough of them are, that it keeps this atmosphere of secrecy and mafia-like maneuvers and depravity a regular occupational hazard.
We need seminaries to be healthy places where virtue and belief can grow and deepen. I think faithful lay people, who truly embrace the teachings of the Church, should be given a bigger responsibility in the formation and the selection of their shepherds. They need real support from us.
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal
I think the premise in a lot of people's arguments against men with same sex attraction goes like this:
All priests should be celibate
Homosexuals are incapable of being celibate
Therefore no homosexuals should become priests.
The flaw I see in this argument is that the Church asks those with same sex attraction to remain celibate whether they are priests or laity. If you are burdened with same sex attraction, you can't act on that attraction without committing sin. Is the Church asking the impossible? That hardly seems fair. Even St. Paul said that it was better to remain unmarried but if you can't then go ahead and get married. (Of course he also condemned unnatural sex between women and between men.) But what are we telling these people? You can't get married (and they can't actually - physically they can not perform what used to be called the marriage act which consummated the marriage.) So no marriage and yet we believe you can't be celibate. That's a ridiculous thing to tell people!
I think the argument being made by some is that living in the seminary with other men is too much of a temptation and therefore they should not become priests. And, given the state of seminaries now, keeping those with homosexual desires out, might be very prudent. However, I don't see this as an absolute.
I see it more like this:
All priests should be celibate
Not all homosexuals are capable of being celibate
Therefore, not all homosexuals should become priests.
But actually you can use this same syllogism and replace the word homosexual with heterosexual. It would be just as valid.
If I were someone saddled with same sex attraction (which I am not; I am a married 58 year old mother of five) and I was a man (again, I am not a man!) who was deeply religious and drawn to a life of service, I might think: well, I have to remain celibate anyway, and if I become a priest, maybe keeping Christ always at the front and center of my life in the deliberate and public way a priest does, I then can live a life of deep meaning and service and it will help keep me from sin.
But then the guy gets to the seminary and finds it is filled with landmines, not only are there other seminarians who are not becoming priests for the right reasons, the rectors and bishops and vocations directors are all using celibacy to cover up for their network of lust and abuse.
So then I have three choices:
Either I am so repulsed, I leave (I know a seminarian who did this)
I give in and become part of the network
I stand my ground and remain celibate in spite of the fact that I am gay.
I am willing to bet that there have been a significant number of priests in the last category.
The problem, it seems to me is: Power.
Corrupt, depraved people in power over seminaries.
These people deliberately set things up so they can get away with a lot of bad stuff. I keep wondering to myself, if this has been a problem for at least 1000 years why hasn't the Church come up with transparent policies a long, long time ago? Perhaps because the entire power structure of the Church attracts corrupt, depraved people who don't allow reform to take place. Not all in the hierarchy are corrupt or spineless, of course, but enough of them are, that it keeps this atmosphere of secrecy and mafia-like maneuvers and depravity a regular occupational hazard.
We need seminaries to be healthy places where virtue and belief can grow and deepen. I think faithful lay people, who truly embrace the teachings of the Church, should be given a bigger responsibility in the formation and the selection of their shepherds. They need real support from us.
Comments
Post a Comment