Incompatibility with Invincible Truth

This  personal reflection on Fiducia Supplicans (Supplicating Trust) was shelved when it was deemed a subject best left to “rest” after numerous theologians and spiritual directors had addressed the document,  and the furor had abated.  Why poke the hornet’s nest? 

However, with Pope Francis’s passing, some commentators are again expressing lingering  confusion, disappointment, and angst while others are lauding its perceived positive acceptance of same-sex, actively sexual couples.   

Generally speaking, I am rarely speechless.  However, the recent Vatican declarative document on “infinite dignity” with accompanying explanation numbed my brain.  Maybe, more specifically, Fiducia Supplicans—meaning humbling entreating trust?— stunned me in its breadth of philosophical absenteeism.  (I exclude the wisdom of some Church leaders conveniently excerpted for this declaration.) The inclination to immediately respond was braked by bafflement on several levels.  Yet, should I not respond as a baptized Catholic reared in the 1950s and 60s who drifted from the Faith, though never anti-Catholic, and returned with hopefully increasing fervor for Truth and Agape?  (Love is too nebulous a word to properly and justly embody dignity.)

So, I considered that I was nonetheless being spun into different spheres of approaches and what was most ultimately evident is that I was mostly reactive in two ways:  emotionally/experientially and conscientiously/cognitively,  The former tugged at my heart;  the latter at reason itself.  I strongly suspect that there are tens of millions of Catholics in a similar dilemma because so many are reverts who had lived “intrinsically disordered” lives (not the exclusive domain of same sex relations), and can recall being quite comfortable with their state of being at the time.  Some still are in that vein though they may well sit complacently in the pews next to us on many Sundays.

Furthermore, at the time and now, many consider(ed) themselves “good” people, who love(d) God; contribute(d) “time, treasure, and talent”; live(d) civilly responsible lives;  and cherish(ed) family.  They did/do not steal, attack neighbors, or otherwise break laws.  Everyone admire(d) their hospitality and open embraces.  Most importantly to note, even faithful reverts may still be haunted (rawly wounded) by their past and witness the impact on their children and other loved ones.  

Is it not to be expected, then, that mixed feelings arise at these mixed messages arising from the institutional Church, and that these same millions may be exasperated by ping ponging thoughts?

So, I am going to be quite candid here, even confessional.

I do understand the impetus of Fiducia Supplicans.  I “get” the Declaration on Human Dignity.  And, that is the point of both.  The authors must know that masses of Catholics are torn interiorly and perhaps exteriorly on these matters of the heart and that they become errant drivers of our emotions and intellect on a daily basis and how we interrelate with those closest to us.  

Beloved members of my family and I have been in those dark spaces that those never seriously fallen away Catholics and other Christians would condemn.  We were fornicators who were also contraceptive and abortive.  We frequently embraced those in same sex relations because they were so—dare I say—gay.  I should interject here that in the 60s and 70s, prior to AIDs, such acquaintances were more discreet, not so publicly emboldened and crude as today.  Unless invited to an insider party, they would not likely even know the extremes of misbehavior in the various haunts of those so inclined.  I have often shared that the infamous Harvey Milk was actually a humorous, even charismatic, character.  (I was a San Franciscan for several years!)

How many of us uttered, “What is the harm?”  “Who are they hurting?”  Or, at worst, “It is their decision.”  I will hasten to add that by my early 30’s, but just prior to my return to the Church, even from a secular point of view, I witnessed first hand the utter chaos of a purely lustful orientation.  I will share one account:

By the early 80s West Hollywood was emerging as a homosexual mecca. One neighbor, “Bill” was one of the more flamboyant of that populous.  A very intelligent man who amused all around him, Bill was a frequent visitor, and we would at times expound on the troubles of the world in gin tainted gales of laughter.  Then one night when my husband was out of town, Bill came crashing at my door.  He just had to visit one of the local gay bars in the area.  I refused to give him a ride, mostly because I rarely drove and certainly not at night.  He persisted, hounded actually, until I gave in.  

As we eventually entered into a spooky, hazy corner of West Hollywood, neon lights flashing from a nearby dive, I cruised to a curb stop but heard the crunching of glass beneath my tires.  I pleaded to Bill that I may have a flat tire.

His off handed response, as he literally jumped from the car. “Oh, you will be okay.”   

It was only then that it dawned on me that Bill was a clever manipulator who had often abused our generosity, demonstrating that the spiritually blind are often the last to realize destructive foolishness.  In retrospect, Bill was a incredibly selfish person.  I will only add that since then I understand better the demons (literally) that impelled him to act so erratically and, bluntly, sinfully.  I have prayed for Bill over the years and hope that he experienced a conversion.

Still, there was another side to West Hollywood and elsewhere, the many dying AIDs victims.  Having then returned to the Church, at least in attendance,  I was drawn to one priest who bemoaned the cruelty of some persons against those with this wretched disease.  This swelled an inner conflict.  A well known pro life organization also faulted prostitutes for spreading the disease without also condemning the men who frequented Sunset Boulevard bargaining for action.  The inconsistency and lopsided accusations nagged me.

So, again, that conflict of conscience, knowing this behavior was wrong but dueling with an awareness that for most, the compulsion to engage in same sex behavior can be lethally overwhelming.  

Of course, this was not the only issue that would confound rueful Catholics.  Abortion rights would soon nearly eclipse “gay” rights, and presently we are in the throes of sex identity confusion, transgenderism, and a multitude of other depravities that threaten to lead to utter societal collapse.

And, it all began with a serpent’s hiss that we could be like God, not merely created in His Image, but also knowledgeable, empowered gods ourselves.

All evil starts in venial sin; it appears relatively minor and not hurtful—maybe even helpful.  It often begins with a small whisper from our own interior thinking and then encompasses external voices.   When, these reach a “majority,” good becomes the malleable concept of the ruling elite and the last bastion of the weak willed.  Always in these final stages of civilization’s collapse is an enshrined rationale to bolster the will to do evil.  

That is where we are today, at spiritually nuclear fusion to what began as humanistic good—from the “free love” of the mid nineteenth century (although far more aged than that) to “limited” use of contraception in marriage only for extraordinary circumstances in the early 20th century, to “rare” abortions for exceptional cases, to international mass murder of innocent lives, unbridled sexual license, and mushrooming anti-Christianity.   And how many souls have been lost for all eternity?

It is that last realization that has so many of us once relapsed Catholics clinging to hope, Divine Mercy, and an “understanding” Church to mollify our worst fears and cling to even temporal sprigs of hope that we and our (still) unrepentant loved ones and neighbors will be somehow “understood” for that inherent dignity despite their often overwhelming urges,  and horrific life choices.  (How many of us vexed over the death of that young trans woman who slaughtered children in a Christian school and died in a hail of bullets?).  We do not want to consider eternal separation of our loved ones (or selves) from God and a joyful eternity.  So, we grasp at straws, including those tossed by Church leaders, as though with enough padding, we can rest assured of safe “landing” upon death.

Fiducia Supplicans was such “straw” a glimmer of empathy many pray from God, and, that somehow, despite the incongruity of same sex behavior that accompanies what may appear to be an otherwise innocuous “loving” relationship—companionship—between two men or women, God will look past the sexual details to dispense grace for each individual to grow. 

Courage International, RC-Encourage, the prominent true apostolate for those experiencing same sex attraction, noted that in essence, the document did not bless same sex relations or couples.  This led to a firestorm by some that Courage had somehow “caved,” too, but as an aside, I disagree, for whatever that is worth.  Also, other orthodox Catholics threaded the needle well on this matter.  Unfortunately, the document still reeks of confusion and muddled, contrary messaging.  

Even so, I reiterate that many true Catholics—at least those striving to stay faithful to the actual Magisterium—grapple with nuance, but we do not want to throw out (our) babies with the dirty water.  We recognize the inherent worth of every individual, and that God wants these persons with him, as he created them in His Image, for all eternity.  The challenge is getting them there.

The latest document, by early accounts, once again, switches the road signs. It alludes to respected voices from the past on the theme of dignity, but, in its finality, repeats the same erroneous refrain:  That some way, some how, the dignity of persons living in grave sin will prevail and supersede, if not eradicate, any contrary evil doing.  Moreover, within this contrived deflection by other grave sins, dutifully admonished, the crafters of the Declaration of Human Dignity spring their disdain for “intrinsically disordered.”  In short, the puzzled Catholic is back at the starting gate of rightful discernment, and, therefore, virtuous action.  The authors do plead:  “Can we not arrive at something more positively succinct?”  

Returning to Courage for a bit, I am ever grateful to Father John Harvey and his successors for their love and conviction that helpfully steered me away from such contrived, obfuscating maneuvers regardless of motive.  While I will most likely have moments of concern and temptation regarding how I respond to errant loved ones,  I do know the following with certainty:  

As supported by Church teaching and Sacred Scripture, homosexual persons are called to chastity supported by (non sexually) disinterested friendship, prayer, and sacramental grace.   Moreover, same sex relations are contrary to natural law and “inadmissible.”  (CCC 2358-59). Ranked among the deadly sins, if any such are intentionally unconfessed or lacking sincere remorse at the time of one’s ultimate encounter with Jesus Christ, the consequences could lead to eternal separation from God.  (Here, at death, truly only God is the judge.) Still,  how at that point of no return,  can persons lacking grace be drawn to God?  I envision that person made in the image and likeness of God one one level aligned, but then,  as with like polar magnets, another reality causes repulsion.  Unity is thwarted.

As for the reference to “intrinsically disordered” to describe same sex behaviors, I will leave it to theologians and great interpreters of Scripture and Church history to be more definitive on this principle.   I might offer the suggestion with or in lieu of that phrase (though a horse of any other color is still a horse):

Inordinate homosexual acts are incompatible with invincible Truth and Agape.