Mirror of Justice

Cardinal Grocholewski on the instruction, teaching

A New Instruction, but Perennial Teaching
Cardinal Grocholewski Comments on Document

VATICAN CITY, NOV. 29, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The Holy See's new document on the admission of men with homosexual tendencies to seminaries and the priesthood does not contain any groundbreaking points, says a Vatican official.

Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, the prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, was responsible for writing the Instruction "Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders."

The document, published today, confirms that it is not possible to admit to the priesthood men "who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.'"

"The newspapers have talked about this document as if it were something extraordinary," said the Polish cardinal when presenting the text on Vatican Radio.

"But it is not strange that our congregation publishes specific documents regarding priestly formation because we have published some 20 documents since the [Second Vatican] Council concerning the different aspects of formation in seminaries," he observed.

Nothing extraordinary

"There has been a document on celibacy, on priestly chastity, talks on different impediments for the priesthood," the 66-year-old cardinal said. "Now this document has nothing extraordinary because, on the problem of homosexuality, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has pronounced itself many times.

"And it has pronounced itself many times because in this area in the world of today, there is a certain disorientation. Many defend the position according to which the homosexual condition is a normal condition of the human person, something like a third gender; instead, this absolutely contradicts human anthropology. It contradicts, according to the thought of the Church, the natural law, and what God has marked in human nature."

Cardinal Grocholewski explained that the new Instruction takes up again the distinction presented by the Catechism of the Catholic Church between "homosexual acts" and "homosexual tendencies."

"Homosexual acts are considered in sacred Scripture, both in the Old as well as the New Testament, from St. Paul and later in the whole Tradition of the Church [and] by the Councils as grave sins, contrary to the natural law," the cardinal said. "Therefore, these acts can never be approved."

Different, however, are "the inclination or deep-seated homosexual tendencies. This homosexual tendency is considered in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as an objectively disordered inclination," he added.

"Why?" asked the cardinal. "Because an inclination as such is not a sin, but it is a more or less strong tendency toward an intrinsically evil conduct from the moral point of view."

3 categories

"These persons therefore are in a situation of trial; they need understanding but must not be discriminated against in any way whatsoever," he added. "On the part of the Church they are called, as everyone, to observe the divine law although, perhaps for some of them, it will cost more."

The Vatican prefect continued: "We have adopted as principle three categories of people who cannot be admitted either to the seminary or to priestly ordination: those who practice homosexuality; those who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, and those who support the so-called gay culture.

"In regard to people who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, we are profoundly convinced that it is an obstacle for a correct relationship with men and women, with negative consequences for the Church's pastoral development."

"Obviously, if we speak of deep-seated tendencies, this means that there can also be transitory tendencies, which do not constitute an obstacle. But in these cases, they must have disappeared three years before diaconal ordination," specified the cardinal.

Regarding priests with homosexual tendencies, Cardinal Grocholewski clarified that "these priestly ordinations are valid, because we do not affirm their invalidity."

"A person that discovers their homosexuality after priestly ordination, must obviously live the priesthood itself, must live chastity," he observed. "Perhaps he will have greater need of spiritual help than others, but I think he must carry out the priesthood itself in the best way possible."

ZE05112903

More on Ave Maria

The Volokh Conspiracy reports on Dean Dobranski's response to the Wall Street Journal article on the controversy surrounding Ave Maria Law School's proposed move to Florida.

Rob

Re the Death Penalty

[A friend sent this.  Thought it would be of interest.]

citymayors.com

More than 300 cities worldwide will rally against death penalty

Rome, 27 November 2005: More than 300 cities, including Dallas and Austin from the US state of Texas, will be taking part in an initiative against the death penalty called ‘Cities for Life, Cities against the Death Penalty’. The Catholic Community of Sant'Egidio in Rome, organizer of the initiative, says it will be the largest ever mobilization against capital punishment.

The Cities for Life, Cities against the Death Penalty is an initiative staged every year by the Catholic Community of Sant'Egidio in Rome on 30 November. This year, the fourth edition, there will be 320 cities in the world taking part, including 30 national capitals. For the event, many of the cities will offer their main squares and logos dres! sed in a special way, or light up their symbolic monuments like the Coliseum in Rome, the obelisk in Buenos Aires.

The spokesman of the Community of Sant'Egidio, Mario Marazziti, says special events and shows will bring together city administrators, ordinary people and students. "Whoever wants to be there will try to think of how it is possible now to have a higher level of justice, justice without revenge and a restorative justice than never denies life," he said.

Mr. Marazziti says the execution of Stanley Tookie Williams, a double homicide convict who has become an ardent anti-gang activist on death row, is set for 13 December in California. California’s governor Schwarzenegger has been urged to stop the execution from going ahead. In addition the 1,000th execution in the history of the United States is expected in Virginia around 30 November.

The worldwide trend, Mr Marazziti said, was against imposing capital punishment. "We have 115 countries that have abo! lished the death penalty, we have about 101 countries that are either active retentionists or passive retentionists, that are de facto abolitionists but they still have the death penalty," he said. "But just 25-30 years ago we had the contrary, we had 60 countries that had abolished the death penalty."

He says he is convinced the death penalty will disappear one day, as did slavery in the past. The United States, China, India, Japan and many Arab countries are among those that impose and carry out capital punishment.

Special focus is being placed this year on Africa, which has rapidly moved from being one of the most conservative continents to the one where changes are occurring fastest. Mr. Marazziti says that Africa, racked by AIDS, civil conflicts and poverty, is moving toward abolishing the death penalty. "We had just one country that had abolished the death penalty in 1981, we have now 13 countries and we have 20 de facto abolitionist countries," he said. The la! test country to abolish the death penalty in Africa is Senegal. (Report by Sabina Castelfranco, VOA)
 

Relationships in Law: is there a place for fraternity?

Thank you to Mark for holding the blog fort with his “Roman holiday” posts.  I’m not sure it was a holiday for me, but it certainly was an amazing event.  Relationships in law: is there a place for fraternity? was a three day conference sponsored by the Focolare Movement's "Comunione e Diritto" (Communion and Law) project, which is working to draw out the implications of the spirituality of communion for legal theory and the legal profession.

 

The event was held in Castelgandolfo, outside of Rome from November 18-20.  Participation exceeded every expectation—reaching almost 700 people from 35 countries and four continents.  It opened with a wonderful panorama in which ten representatives from four continents spoke of the challenges of bringing the ideal of “fraternity” to their own legal systems and environments, and their hopes for the congress.  The US was represented by David Shaheed, a Muslim judge from Indiana who has been involved with Muslim-Catholic dialogue for a number of years.  (he's here in the first picture, on the left, next to representatives from the Philipines and Hungary). 

This was followed by a message from the founder of the Focolare Movement, Chiara Lubich, inviting the participants to reflect on how legal theory and practice might be enriched by the dimension of relationships of mutual love.  To give you a taste:

“Every human being feels the need to be loved and to give to others the love he or she has received.  On the other hand, it is the love that is received and given that allows people to fulfill themselves and also to live in communion with one another.  It is in this sense that fraternity can be understood and practiced.  But this fraternity has an ontological foundation, I dare say, in the love of God who in creating every human being made us brothers and sisters to one another, therefore equal and inclined toward the good of a common family, the human family. . . . 

How can we concretely live out this fraternity in our daily lives?  We have understood that the way is mutual love, lived on the model of the Most Holy Trinity, where the three persons annul themselves out of love for each other, to find themselves again in a continual crescendo of Life—if we can thus say in human terms—always more authentically persons and always more deeply in communion, in unity. 

We, men and women, are called to imitate this sublime model of life in all our relations, in every sphere of social life.  Law, right from its inception, has been perceived as the set of rules governing social life, indeed as the order of society itself.  I would like to see this regulating function vivified by the new commandment of mutual love, to encourage the complete fulfillment of people and the relations they establish.” 

The project is still at the beginning of the enormous task of drawing out a fruitful international exchange between legal systems, and is still working through numerous cultural and linguistic challenges.  But the program reflected a promising start.  In addition to those listed on the program, other brief interventions such as one from Cameroon, gave glimpses of the traumas, hopes and heroism entailed in the efforts to develop functioning legal systems and to protect human rights.

We were 23 professors, lawyers and judges from the US, including six from Fordham, and with MOJ well represented by Mark!  His comments on how the solution to the limitations of homo ecomonicus can be found in Christian anthropology, were very well received.  My brief “Seeds of Fraternity in Corporate Law,” explored themes similar to my earlier essay, “Toward a Trinitarian Theory of Products Liability,” (see side bar under my papers) with further reflections on John Rawls as an unlikely ally in the venture. 

Other US contributions touched on mediation in family law disputes, drug courts’ emphasis on treatment rather than punishment, and the Georgia Justice Project as a successful example of restorative justice and social re-integration.  The final word of the concluding roundtable was given to Fordham's Prof. Russ Pearce, who gave a Jewish perspective on how the concept and practice of love of neighbor could transform legal structures and practice.  (Pictures of some of our group and the roundtable are here)

The Italian and Vatican press gave extensive coverage to the event.  (If you read italian, check out the Avvenire article, “Se la fraternità si sposa con il diritto”).  Doug Ammar and I were also interviewed by the English version of Vatican Radio, I’ll let you know when it runs.  The Italian versions of the presentations will be published in the interdisciplinary cultural review, Nuova Umanità.  Plans for an English version are also underway.

I know that many of you had this event in your prayers - thank you - and we'll keep you posted on the plans for a local follow-up, probably during the next academic year.

Amy

Gays: Response to Questions

I am at home too sick to go into the office and do not have Helminiak’s book in front of me, but I think the book’s most important contribution (see interview, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/interviews/helminiak.html) is to emphasize a criticism of the standard reading of Romans, ch.1(the most difficult passage to reconcile with his position). Helminiak argues that “When you read Paul the way it's translated, it seems pretty clear. ‘Unnatural’ is a mistranslation, pure and simple. It should read "atypical". The Greek words are ‘para physin’--beyond the natural. All [the standard translations of the Bible] are mistranslated. And this is only recent scholarship, like in the past ten years. The word ‘para physin’ comes out of early Stoic philosophy, from the early centuries when Christianity was forming. If it was being used in the Stoic sense, then it would mean ‘unnatural.’ The fact is that Paul, who was using it, didn't know Stoic philosophy. He used it in his own sense, which squares with the popular usage of the day. ... When they were talking about men and women, if you did things that weren't the standard way of behaving, it was called ‘unnatural.’ What it meant was ‘unconventional.’ . . . They can say that Paul is condemning. But if you read him very, very closely, you see what he's really saying. Take out the prejudices that we have, and he's portraying two things that happen to the Gentiles. They're into dirty behaviors, uncleanness (and that's the sexual stuff), and they're into really evil and wicked things as well. And later on he goes to say, ‘But nothing is unclean in Christ.’

“And his lesson is, ‘Let's stop splitting up the church over stuff that doesn't matter.’ I'm saying that today, as well as Paul saying it then. We shouldn't be bickering over sexual practices. What we should be concerned about is love and charity and concern”

Far more persuasive to me is the fact that the Jews of Paul’s time had a very different conception of gays and lesbians than we do. They thought of people as heterosexuals who, at best, were engaging in recreational same sex relations on the side (some biblical passages imagine far worse including rape, prostitution, and perderasty). They were unaware of the millions of persons who through no fault of their own are not attracted to people of the opposite sex . They did not face up to the question whether God created these millions with a demand of mandatory celibacy. And, of course, Jesus has nothing to say on the subject.

  In response to Patrick (I do not suppose he would disagree whatever his position on the merits), I would say that many who accept the immorality of same sex relations need not think that gays and lesbians are incapable of rich spiritual lives. Indeed, the Catechism speaks against any such view. They might reject the Vatican’s opposition to anti-discrimination laws against gays and lesbians, against the Vatican’s position on gay/lesbian adoption, against the apparent view that gays present special risks of pedophilia, against the view that gays are so disordered that they can not relate well to men or women, and they might favor the Church’s prior more generous practice of admitting gays to the priesthood. They might favor some of these positions, but not others.

 

Subsidiarity and Sex Education

Ann Althouse has opened an interesting conversation over proposed legislation in Wisconsin requiring school districts to teach abstinence as the preferred mode of sex education.  She takes a subsidiarity-friendly perspective, preferring a localized approach, but this raises an interesting question as to whether such a pressing cultural and social issue might warrant the top-down imposition of some collective wisdom.

Rob

Bishop Skylstad on Homosexual Priests

Bishop Skylstad, on behalf of the USCCB, has issued an explanatory statement to accompany the release of the Vatican document on the admission of seminarians.  (Hat Tip: Open Book) Here's the heart of it:

Formation is not a time for an applicant to begin to resolve serious issues in his life, whether they involve addictive behavior, personal finances, sexual matters, the ability to work collaboratively with others, or any other significant concern.  A candidate still facing issues like these is not acceptable until they are resolved. A man who has a personal agenda that he might place ahead of the Gospel is also not an acceptable candidate. Like marriage, a priestly vocation is not centered on the search for one’s individual, personal fulfillment.

In this instruction, the Congregation for Catholic Education is exercising a Christian realism about what is expected in candidates for the priesthood. This realism understands the challenges of our time. It expresses the valid concern that all candidates must display an “affective maturity” which enables them to relate properly to others as chaste, celibate priests who can faithfully represent the teaching of the Church about sexuality, including the immorality of homosexual genital activity. This realism also makes it clear that it is certainly not acceptable if a candidate practices homosexuality or, whether active or not, if he identifies himself principally by a homosexual inclination or orientation.  It is also not acceptable for a candidate to support the “gay culture” and to be so concerned with homosexual issues that he cannot sincerely represent the Church’s teaching on sexuality. In doing so, he limits his ability to minister pastorally to all those in his care.

But won't many individuals with "deep-rooted homosexual tendencies" have already resolved the issue and accepted the fact of those tendencies, even if they intend not to act on them?  It's not comparable to a gambling addiction that is being worked out.  Even assuming that homosexual tendencies are "objectively disordered," they still are part of the individual's identity.  It seems that coming to grips with that identity is necessary to move forward with a commitment to celibacy.  Does the statement presume that a successfully celibate individual necessarily has less deeply rooted homosexual tendencies than an unsuccessfully celibate individual? 

Another part of Bishop Skylstad's statement seems to raise some tension, albeit implicitly, with the Vatican's position:

Since news of this document was first discussed in the media, the question has been asked whether a homosexually-inclined man can be a good priest.   The answer lies in the lives of those men who, with God’s grace, have truly been dedicated priests, seeking each day not to be served but to serve their people, faithfully representing in word and example the teaching of the Church in its fullness, including God’s revelation that sexual expression is intended only to take place between a husband and a wife in a loving, faithful, and life-giving marriage. 

When Jesus told his apostles how difficult it would be “for one who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven,” they responded with amazement.  Jesus’ reply reminds us of the power of God’s grace: “For human beings this is impossible, but for God all things are possible.” (Cf. Matt. 19.23-26).

So why is it beyond the power of God to mold an individual with "deep rooted homosexual tendencies" into a "truly dedicated priest?"  Consider the relevant portion of the Catechism:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

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.

If "Christian perfection" is a legitimate aspiration for individuals with deep-seated homosexual tendencies, why not the priesthood?  Is the Church cabining God's transformative power, or is the fact that the tendencies remain "deep seated" a sign that God's transformative power has not been at work and thus that the individual has not been called to the priesthood?  Does the latter possibility rest on the presumption that homosexuality can be "cured?"

Rob

Neuhaus on Krauthammer on McCain

Charles Krauthammer, in this essay, "The Truth About Torture," says that "it's time to be honest about doing terrible things":

Question: If you have the slightest belief that hanging this man by his thumbs will get you the information to save a million people, are you permitted to do it?

Now, on most issues regarding torture, I confess tentativeness and uncertainty. But on this issue, there can be no uncertainty: Not only is it permissible to hang this miscreant by his thumbs. It is a moral duty. . . .

GIVEN THE GRAVITY OF THE DECISION, if we indeed cross the Rubicon--as we must--we need rules. The problem with the McCain amendment is that once you have gone public with a blanket ban on all forms of coercion, it is going to be very difficult to publicly carve out exceptions. The Bush administration is to be faulted for having attempted such a codification with the kind of secrecy, lack of coherence, and lack of strict enforcement that led us to the McCain reaction. . . .

He closes by calling for us to "begin to work together to codify rules of interrogation for the two very unpleasant but very real cases in which we are morally permitted--indeed morally compelled--to do terrible things."

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus -- of "theo-con" fame -- has a different view:

Krauthammer says that means McCain’s proposed rule is “merely for show,” and comes close to saying that its supporters are guilty of hypocrisy.

I am not at all sure. Establishing a principle is not “merely for show.” Recognizing, clearly but sotto voce, that there will sometimes be exceptions to the principle is not hypocrisy. Those who, under the most extreme circumstances, violate the rule must be held strictly accountable to higher authority. Here the venerable maxim applies, abusus non tollit usus–the abuse does not abolish the use.

We are not talking here about the reckless indulgence of cruelty and sadism exhibited in, for instance, the much-publicized Abu Ghraib scandal. We are speaking, rather, of extraordinary circumstances in which senior officials, acting under perceived necessity, decide there is no moral alternative to making an exception to the rules, and accept responsibility for their decision. Please note that, in saying this, one does not condone the decision. It is simply a recognition that in the real world such decisions will be made. . . .

Krauthammer’s moral logic is that it is sometimes necessary to do evil in order that good may result. Here he is in the company of Michael Walzer who has argued that effective leaders must be prepared to have “dirty hands.” An alternative argument is that coercion, even brutal coercion, may be morally justified in extraordinary circumstances in order to save thousands of innocent lives. In that event, it is further argued, the use of such coercion is not evil but is the moral course of action.

Whether, in fact, the circumstances justified the action must be subject to the rigid scrutiny of higher authority. There will likely be cover-ups, rationalizations, and other forms of duplicity. Where possible, they must be exposed, in the full awareness that in this connection, as in all connections, we are dealing with fallen humanity. As with all rules, the aim is to make sure that the exception to the rule does not become the rule.

McCain is right: The United States should be on record as banning “cruel, inhuman, or degrading” treatment of prisoners. The meaning of each of those terms will inevitably be disputed, as will the case-by-case application of the principle. But again, abusus non tollit usus.

These are just excerpts.  Read the whole things.

Theology

As a friendly amendment to Michael Scaperlanda's title and as a follow up to his excellent question, I would suggest that what we face are, in the first instance, questions of theology, not of Catholic legal theory: theology of priesthood, theology of vocation, theology of the person, theology of sexuality, ecclesiology, etc.  One of the intellectual assets of this blog is the theological insight and creativity so often brought to bear by many of its contributors.  I'd value seeing a working out of the theological cases for and against the particulars of the Holy See's recent statement.  I'm particularly interested in the relevant theological views of those who do not dissent from the Church's teachings on homosexuality as such and on homosexual sexual acts specifically.  This gets back to Amy Wellborn's analysis (which Rob reported): Is the opposition to this exercise by the Church of formative control over her priesthood and those institutions that contribute to it primarily a manifestation of dissent from particular teachings about sexuality and sexual acts?  How much does the criticism of the statement advance an implicit (or explicit) counter-ecclesiology?                      

Emigration Brain Drain?

Zenit reports:

"Money Sent Home: A Boost for Many Nations
Study Highlights Role of Migration in Helping Development

WASHINGTON, D.C., NOV. 26, 2005 - International migration can be an important tool in helping developing countries, affirmed a World Bank report published Nov. 16. Migrants and the money they send back home, remittances, is the main theme in the annual "Global Economic Prospects report for 2006."

"The challenge facing policy-makers is to fully achieve the potential economic benefits of migration, while managing the associated social and political implications," commented François Bourguignon, World Bank chief economist.

Officially recorded remittances worldwide exceeded $232 billion in 2005. Of this, developing countries received $167 billion, more than twice the level of development aid from all sources. The report estimates that remittances sent through informal channels could add at least 50% to the official tally, making them the largest source of external capital in many developing countries. The report considered that it is plausible that in the coming years, official remittance flows will continue to rise at the 7% to 8% annual rate seen during the 1990s.

The countries receiving the most in recorded remittances are India ($21.7 billion), China ($21.3 billion), Mexico ($18.1 billion), France ($12.7 billion) and the Philippines ($11.6 billion). Those for which remittances account for the largest proportion of gross domestic product are Tonga (31%), Moldova (27.1%), Lesotho (25.8%), Haiti (24.8%) and Bosnia and Herzegovina (22.5%).

Remittances were larger than public and private capital inflows in 36 developing countries in 2004. In another 28 countries, they were larger than the earnings from the most important commodity export. In Mexico, for example, remittances are larger than foreign direct investment, and in Sri Lanka they are larger than tea exports.

The United States was the largest source country, with nearly $39 billion in outward remittances in 2004. ...

Costs and benefits

The World Bank explained that over the past two decades barriers to cross-border trade and financial transactions have fallen significantly, facilitating the transfer of money. At the same time, despite its economic benefits, migration remains controversial. While it brings benefits for some there can be important losses for other individuals and groups. Some workers may see an erosion of wages or employment, for example, due to the increased numbers of immigrants.

Migrants, too, pay a price, even if they reap economic advantages. Many immigrants, the report explained, particularly the irregular ones, suffer from exploitation and abuse. Then there are costs involved, especially those related to the exorbitant fees paid to traffickers. The family members left behind, particularly children, also suffer, while at the same time they benefit from the extra income that migrants send back home to their families. ...

The World Bank did warn, however, that in the long run the policies of developing countries should aim to generate adequate employment and rapid growth, rather than relying on migration as an alternative to development opportunities.

Losing skills

The situation is different in the case of emigration by those with high levels of skill. It also brings economic benefits, and when the expatriates return they bring with them important overseas connections, which can improve access to capital and technology, as well as business contacts for firms in the country of origin.

But, on the negative side, large outflows of high-skilled workers can reduce growth in the origin country. Education and health services in the countries of origin may be impaired due to the loss of personnel. As well, the country loses its return on high-skilled workers trained at public expense..."

While generally friendly to e/immigration, the Catholic Church, using social science data from the 1960's, has frowned upon "brain drain" - the transnational migration of highly skilled workers from developing countries to developed countries.  In a though provoking book (forthcoming), VIllanova's Michele Pistone argues that the social science data underlying the Church's position is wrong (or at least has been superceded).  Her research, much like the World Bank's report, suggests that the development picture is much more complex than the Church seemed to assume 30 or 40 years ago, and that the so-called "brain drain" may actually have a positive effect on developing countries. 

I have invited Professor Pistone to comment on the World Bank's report and on her own work in this area and look forward to receiving her comments.

Michael