Sunday, January 29, 2006
Neuhaus vs Jesuits ... Again
Richard John Neuhaus is not having a good week. First he raises the straw man of Jesuit conspiracy. Then he piles on with a flimsy attack of an America editorial.
So the response of the official magazine of the Society of Jesus in the U.S. would seem to be that homosexuality is no more morally problematic than one’s ethnic identity or geographical origins ...
If you carefully check Church teaching, a born or early-determined same sex attraction is not a moral problem, in that a person does not consciously choose which sex he or she is attracted to. That's basic moral theology.
... and that there should be room in the priesthood also for men who are not gay.
There's been room before. The real problem is that some clergy do not remain celibate who have promised to do so.
Rome says gay men should not be admitted to the priesthood.
Did they really? They said those who are active sexually in the gay culture are unsuitable. We all know that each individual diocese will handle this instruction differently from any other. It's not likely some dioceses will turn away qualified celibate candidates who happen to be SSA.
The Society of Jesus, insofar as it is represented by America, responds that men who are not gay should not be excluded from the priesthood. There would appear to be a problem here.
I wasn't aware a periodical has the same stature as a parliament or other governing body. Leaving that aside, the America editorial seems calm and balanced. Neuhaus, on the other hand, notes:
The editorial response in America pointedly does not affirm the Church’s teaching on homosexuality.
It doesn't. But it also doesn't reaffirm the Church's teaching on ordaining women, on the Real Presence, or on torture. Is a written affirmation of all Church teaching required in composing an editorial, or does an editor actually have some compositional leeway to get something on the page within a set word limit.
