Our Lord once said, “Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no.”(Mt. 5:37)  This is commonly interpreted as a moral prescription against duplicity.  While I dare not accuse Bishop John Dolan of being deliberately unclear in his recent article for Outreach, a self described “LGBTQ Catholic resource” edited by Fr. James Martin, the article is confusing enough that it ought to be addressed. 

I don’t pretend to be the smartest Theologian, but as someone with multiple Theology degrees, I hope I am qualified enough to shed some light on the true teachings of the Church on these “hot button” issues.  “Where there is darkness, light.” (Prayer of St. Francis).  

The Jesuits have traditionally practiced the following modus operandi when engaging in academic or evangelical dialogue: 1. Never negate 2. Seldom affirm 3. Always make fine distinctions.  This makes sense, as the Jesuits were once known to heroically mission in territories where those who don’t take boisterous proselytizing well might deal these missionaries some serious violence.  A better route is to find out what the natives believe, see where there is common ground, and then ask clarifying questions that intelligently and smoothly guide the evangelized to the fullness of the truth.  As the evangelist makes these fine distinctions, he shares the fullness of the truth of both the faith and the moral life that God calls all men to live in order to find true fulfillment and happiness.  For centuries, the Jesuits proved that this was an effective way to share the Gospel!
 
In more recent times, however, many Jesuits have been criticized for misunderstanding how to apply the first two rules and for neglecting the third rule of “Always make fine distinctions.”  Take a look around the Outreach website, which is self-described as a mission that “operates under the auspices of America Media, a Jesuit ministry”; it’s not the place to go for clear and basic Catechesis.

While the article did not say anything intrinsically heterodox, it scandalized many because it missed on all three marks: 1. it never negated certain sinful actions, 2. it only affirmed a very narrow group of people, those termed “Catholics within the LGBTQ community”, and 3. it didn’t make fine distinctions on what the Catholic Church actually teaches on the moral life itself and the call every person has to live chastely.  

The purpose of the present article is simple; to clearly state what the Church teaches regarding the ontological goodness of the human person, to express the basics of natural law theory and sin, and to share the universal call to live morally upright and fulfilled lives as God’s children.  


Martinism

The present article aims to break down the material of the Outreach article itself, NOT to deliver ad hominems against anyone.  Nevertheless, the article fits an archetype that is worth noting.

Ironically, orthodox Catholics and Modernist Catholics alike may both come away from the Outreach article and position themselves on opposite sides of the same coin in their "take away" from it.  They will both bombastically exclaim the same interpretation, but one side will rejoice and the other will lament; “See, the Bishop is clearly pro-gay!”

Worse, the result of an article like this amounts to hours of chaotic banter between these two camps in comments sections on Twitter, Facebook, and every other echo chamber of societal destruction that the internet is home of.  

Considering the matter the article covers, and the fact that it was published on a website edited by Fr. James Martin, it’s fair to call the stoking of this phenomenon “Martinism.”  Martinism happens when a theologian or cleric uses ambiguous language to affirm the ontological goodness of the human person (in this case,  an “LGBTQ” person), condemns those who don’t affirm the ontological goodness of said persons, and then fails to elaborate on the Church’s authentic moral teachings as they may relate to said persons.

Martinism generates clicks and buzz, but it doesn’t bring to light nuanced truth that readers could intellectually and practically benefit from, nor does it call readers to the happiness that comes in living according to the timeless truths of the natural law that have been consistently affirmed by the Church for 2000 years.


Ontological Goodness

If Bishop Dolan meant to affirm the “ontological goodness” of the human person, any person, when he said, “I wish to affirm you in your sacred identity”, then he wouldn’t be wrong.  What is problematic, though, is the highly equivocal nature of the language of “sacred identity”.  “Sacred identity”, absent of fine distinction on its meaning, could mean all sorts of different things to various readers.  

If you want to see a day where the Church surrenders all of her 2000 year credibility in authoritatively teaching the natural law, you might read an intention into the Bishop’s words that he is affirming the lifestyles of “LGBTQ Catholics” as “holy” or “good.”  Actually, the opposing camp could easily come away with the same interpretation, but again, they would lament, not celebrate this ambiguous tag of “sacred identity.”

But Bishop Dolan did not explicitly affirm any lifestyle with this comment.  Let’s charitably grant the interpretation that Dolan was affirming the goodness of the human person per se, apart from his actions.  Fine.  Let’s break down what that means.  

In the Prima Pars of the Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas makes it clear that God cannot create things that are evil by their very being.  God, who is perfect, and from whom all created things were given their own being, cannot and does not create evil things.  

In Question 5, Article 1, he says: “Goodness and being are really the same… it is clear that a thing is perfect so far as it exists; for it is existence that makes all things actual”

And in Article 3 of the same Question, he says, “Every being, as being, is good. For all being, as being, has actuality and is in some way perfect...”

As much as I dislike spiders, I would be insulting God to say that any of his creations, in and of themselves, are evil.  Imagine a God who could or even would do such a thing; “Alright, now that I made all the good things, it’s time to create some evil creatures.  Cats, you shall be evil.”  Even the most enthusiastic dog lovers must see the absurdity in such a notion.

Nor does God create individual persons to be evil.  And we aren’t Calvinists, believing that some are beyond grace, but instead predestined for damnation.  Nor do we follow Luther, who claimed that man’s nature is evil, and that grace merely covers man “as snow covers a dung heap”.  

Unfortunately, the Outreach article did not provide this kind of clarification about this “sacred identity” that Dolan wished to affirm.  Instead, after making his affirmation, he proceeded to make clear what he wished to condemn; any attempt one might have to “re-brand Catholics in the LGBTQ community as sinners, intrinsically disordered or as persons inclined to disorder.”  Another troubling statement.

This statement implies that there is a significant problem within the Church whereby Catholics are failing to recognize the ontological goodness of the “LGBTQ” person, but are instead just condemning such people as sinners or as “intrinsically disordered” people.  

But there is not a chronic problem of Catholics condemning persons as merely sinners or calling them “intrinsically disordered.”  Most Catholics understand this notion of the ontological goodness of all persons, but instead, as the teaching office of the Church does, condemn certain acts as sinful or certain desires as “intrinsically disordered.” 


What is Sin?

It was interesting that Bishop particularly warned readers not to refer to “LGBTQ” persons as “intrinsically disordered”.  Interesting because, while it’s actually rare to find Catholics who label “LGBTQ” persons as “intrinsically disordered”, the Church clearly condemns homosexual acts as “intrinsically disordered”.  In fact, the exact language is found directly in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  The Catechism states: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’” (CCC 2357)

Is the Catechism wrong to condemn certain acts, any immoral acts for that matter, as “intrinsically disordered?”  Is there a large contingent of clerics and Catechists wrongly using the Catechism and accidentally labeling persons, not acts, as “intrinsically disordered?”  No and no.  

In Dolan’s article, at one point, he asked “what is sin?”.  He then shared the etymology of sin according to both Greek and Hebrew; to sin is “to miss the mark”.  But instead of extrapolating what that means exactly in terms of natural law theory, and relating it back to the issue at hand, Bishop then reminded readers that one “misses the mark” when he fails to acknowledge that all people deserve love.

The idea that to sin is to “miss the mark” is quite compatible with natural law theory and the teachings of the most renown theologians.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church cites the same definition of sin that St. Thomas took from St. Augustine: “Sin is a word, deed, or desire against the eternal law" (CCC. 1849, Cf. ST Prima Secundae Q. 71, A 6, Cf. Contra Faustum, xxii)  Of course, to comprehend this, one must first understand the eternal law.  

To explain the eternal law, St. Thomas first establishes what law is: “a law is nothing else but a dictate of practical reason emanating from the ruler who governs a perfect community.” he goes on to say

The whole community of the universe is governed by Divine Reason… and since since the Divine Reason's conception of things is not subject to time but is eternal, according to Proverbs 8:23, therefore it is that this kind of law must be called eternal. (ST, Prima Secundae Q 91, Article 1)

Translation: God intended a specific order and design to everything that he created within the universe.  When a created thing acts according to the design God intended for the fulfillment of that creature, it properly participates in the eternal law.  Creatures that lack reason have an easier time participating in the eternal law than we humans do.  Birds are driven by instinct to act exactly within the design that God intended for birds.  They fly, pick worms out of the ground, sing, and build nests without free choice of the will or intellect to possibly stray them away from acting according to these natural inclinations of theirs.  

St. Thomas says,

It is evident that all things partake somewhat of the eternal law, in so far as, namely, from its being imprinted on them, they derive their respective inclinations to their proper acts and ends. Now among all others, the rational creature is subject to Divine providence in the most excellent way… this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law. (Ibid. A. 2)

Because man has the ability, not the right, to act against his own nature, man is able to participate in the eternal law in a way that gives God more glory than other animals do.  When man intellectually understands what is good for him and freely chooses to pursue that which man is ordered toward, he shows God love. 

Doing that which respects the nature God gave us is like saying to God our Father, “Thank you for the wonderful design you have given me.  Thank you for making me a social being able to live in harmony with a society, a monogamous creature who finds deep fulfillment in sharing my life with one person whereby I will enjoy the complimentary of the opposite sex and give the qualities of both father and mother to our children, a religious creature who gets to experience the wonder of contemplating the cosmos and worshiping He who made them, someone who values the sacredness of human life so much that he defends innocent human life, etc…”

The authors of the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly knew these intricacies of Natural Law Theory.  In section 2359, it says, “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.”  Of course, heterosexual persons with disordered desires against God’s plan for human sexuality aren’t off the hook either.  We are all called to chastity, i.e. living in such a way that respects that there is only one authentic sexual act; the marital act between a man an his wife, and even then, man is called to be open to life and to never treat his wife as an object of mere consumption or lust. (See Man and Woman He Created Them, Pope John Paul II)  As the Catechism explicitly states, “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal [marital] love of man and woman.” (CCC, 2360).  Just as adultery can never give glory to God because it is intrinsically disordered against God’s design for human sexuality, masturbation, contraception, and a host of other abuses against chastity are intrinsically disordered too.

When a man shuns that which is against his nature, he shows respect for the design God gave him.  When he chooses to act against his human nature, to act against the way man is to participate in the eternal law, it is as if he says to God, “Neat design God, but I think you got it wrong.  I have a better idea.”  Just as it doesn’t end well for the bird unable to find a worm, or build a nest for her eggs because the winds are too strong, when we miss out on what fulfills us, according to our nature, we end up harmed.  When we choose to act against the natural law (to sin), we do ourselves damage and become as unhappy as we become disconnected from our neighbors and from God.

This is why the fathers of the Catechism of the Catholic Church say, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’” (CCC 2357)  Not because they wanted some people who struggle with same sex attraction to feel bad, but because they, like all Catholics should, love all persons enough to call them to living in a way that both pleases God and makes them happy.  


Who is Re-Branding?

Another term that was undefined in the Outreach article was “re-branding”.  Bishop expressed concern over those who “re-brand” others.  It is unclear what “re-branding” someone means exactly, but when one tags a group of people as “LGBTQ” it makes others wonder: “Who is doing the re-branding?”  

Dolan said,

When people re-brand Catholics in the LGBTQ community as sinners, intrinsically disordered or as persons inclined to disorder, while forgetting that they are Christian, they have not only ruptured the “being” of the other, but even their own Christian selves.

In discussing this statement with others, one man, attempting to give the benefit of the doubt said, “Maybe he is speaking against labeling people according to their lifestyles or desires.   Fr. Mike Schmidt is careful not to define people according to a disordered attraction and thus resists calling people ‘gay’ and the like.  Maybe that’s what Bishop Dolan was trying to do.”

Considering that Bishop Dolan referred to said people as “Catholics within the LGBTQ Community”, it is clear that he defers to the secular label that has been given to people who, at the least, desire romantic relationships with those of their own sex or desire to take on a different gender.  As these desires are indeed “intrinsically disordered”, it is a poor choice to label others according to these desires.  

A desire to steal is intrinsically disordered.  A desire to to engage in sexual activity with one’s wife but to deliberately thwart the natural procreative end of the sexual act is intrinsically disordered.  A desire to lie to others is intrinsically disordered.  But considering the ontological goodness of all human persons, who all have the law written in their hearts (Rom 2:15) and whom God always desires they "be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4), what good is it to label people according to their disordered desires?

When we invite the man who commits adultery into full communion with the Church, we don’t call him a “Catholic within the Adulterous Community.”  We wouldn’t call a man who desires to lie a “Catholic within the liar community”, or the man who uses contraception a “Catholic within the contracepting community”.  

Then how should an invitation into the Church sound?  To Bishop Dolan’s point, Jesus showed us that it shouldn’t sound judgmental.  Fair enough.  Literally, Jesus told men who wanted to stone the woman who committed adultery that “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone.”(Jn 8:7)  But if we really love someone, we are also going to follow Jesus as he told the same woman, “Go, and now sin no more.” (Ibid, verse 11)  Jesus protected this woman.  Then, without defining her according to her sin, he did call her to conquer it.

Jesus didn’t acknowledge this woman’s sin in order to make her feel bad.  Jesus called her to repentance and to amend her life so that she could please God, properly live in communion with her neighbors, and be fulfilled as a human person per se.

Every Catechist ought to preach the same gospel. It’s the call to holiness we all need, every one of us.  

When we call one to the fullness of the Church, to repentance, and to live a morally upright and sacramental life, we recognize him as a man, capable of doing good and living the life of happiness that God intended.  True, we shouldn’t be out for judgment, but we would err if we merely cast judgment upon those who judge, and never extend the invitation to the happiness that comes with putting away our sins and living the fulfilled life that God calls all of us to.  

God bless,

Gadfly