Mark Shea, Deacon Greg Kandra and false compassion

Deacon Greg Kandra is impressed with Mark Shea's Blog post about Perry Lorenzo, a homosexual man who lived in the Seattle area.  According to Deacon Kandra, "Mark Shea tackled a tough subject with a kind of grace and compassion that couldn't help but leave me impressed."  Here's what Mark Shea wrote:

"One of the people I admire most in the world, who I regard as an inspiration and, very likely, as a saint was a gay guy who lived here in Seattle named Perry Lorenzo. You can get something of a sense of the man from his blog. Dunno if he was celibate or not and, frankly, regard it as none of my business. All I know is that the guy was clearly a man who loved Jesus, loved his Catholic faith, and taught a huge number of people about it, both gay and straight, in a way that was immensely attractive and uplifting for everybody who encountered him. He was also one of the most learned people I have ever met and a profoundly humble man. He was, for many years, the director of education for the Seattle Opera. Had a brilliant knack for speaking the Catholic tradition to the cultured despisers of tradition here in Seattle. His funeral, which he planned himself as he was dying, was one of the most beautiful and Christ-centered liturgies I’ve ever experienced. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if half the congregation was not Catholic: a testament to his greatness.


Some Catholics (and some of my gay readers) will probably be surprised to hear that I’m not interested in whether or not he was celibate. Not my business. That’s between him and God. (I had a reader write me in some degree of scandal after I posted on his death because he apparently had a partner he lived with. If memory serves, I expressed to my reader a deep lack of interest in that fact since a) Not. My. Business and b) merely living with his partner is not proof of anything anyway, either about his relationship with his partner, nor about his relationship with God.

So do I contradict myself, since it’s not a secret that I agree with the Church that homosexual acts are sinful. I don’t see how. If Perry was an active homosexual, it’s none of my business and certainly not mine to judge. After all, I also agree with the Church that my own acts of gluttony are sinful and even gravely so. But I don’t believe God has abandoned or rejected me and I trust his grace to help me slowly become conformed to Christ, so why should I believe for a second that somebody like Perry, who manifested such abundant and beautiful fruits of the Spirit was not pleasing to God and was not doing his best to strive for God? On the contrary, I regard him as a role model and greatly admire his deep, generous and true faith. I hope he prays for the Church in Seattle and I think he is (not was, God rest his soul) one of the great ornaments of the Church."

Mark Shea's argument that it is none of his [and by extension, none of our) business whether a man who professed to be Catholic was an active homosexual or not is specious.  On the surface it might seem charitable or compassionate to some.  But at its root, it is nonsense.  Although the privacy of a person's home is indeed sacred, it is not absolute.  Granted that the scandal of an evil act [such as a homosexual act] is greatly compounded when it is done in public.  But the same evil act does not become a good act simply because it is performed in private.  Its evil nature remains unchanged.  If a man is sexually abusing children within the privacy of his own home, does Mr. Shea take the attitude that it's none of his business?

Although homosexual acts are graver when they are public or manifest, these acts continue to be "intrinsically evil" when done in private.  This is the teaching of Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor: "If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it.  They remain 'irremediably' evil acts per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person" (Veritatis Splendor, No. 81).

When Mr. Shea writes, "If Perry was an active homosexual, it’s none of my business and certainly not mine to judge," again this might appear on the surface to be the Christian attitude.  But, as Dr. Germain Grisez explains, while "Vatican II neatly formulates the prohibition against judging others: 'God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone'..This norm..does not preclude judgments necessary for determining that one should try to dissuade others from committing sins or to encourage them to repent if they have sinned...the responsibility, stated precisely, is not to admonish sinners, but to admonish those who seem to be sinning.  To evade this responsibility on the ground that one cannot fulfill it without being judgmental is to rationalize indifference and cowardice, rooted in the inadequacy of love of neighbor." (Citing Gaudium et Spes, No. 28).

Mark Shea is advancing a false idea of compassion.  True compassion, as Thomas Aquinas tells us, is an effect of charity (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 25, a. 6, ad 4).  But the object of this virtue is God, whose love extends to creatures (St., II-II, q. 25, a. 3).  Thus the virtue of compassion seeks to bring God to the one who is suffering so that he may participate in God's infinite love.  As Saint Augustine explains, "'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.'  Now, you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself.  What, then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor, namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection." (Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, No. 49).

Obviously, none of us has the right to judge Perry Lorenzo's internal guilt.  For as Gaudium et Spes emphasizes, "God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts."  But for this same reason, none of us has the right to declare Perry Lorenzo a saint.  The fact that Mr. Lorenzo was openly homosexual and was known to have lived with another man is a matter of serious concern not to mention a source of scandal.

I would pray for Mr. Lorenzo's soul.  But to declare him a saint is imprudent.

Marianne Duddy-Burke: Why isn't the Boston Archdiocese accusing her of causing harm to the community?

As I mentioned in a previous post, "Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of the homosexual Catholic-in-name-only 'DignityUSA,' praised the new policy of the Boston Archdiocese which prohibits "discrimination" against students who come from a homosexual household while stating clearly that it is her belief that, 'As long as the doctrine stands [Catholic doctrine which defines marriage as a heterosexual union and which says that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity], it makes it really hard for the pastoral and the doctrinal aspects of our faith not to come into a clash...The people of the church are changing, and by and large very affirming of gay people, and the hierarchy and the doctrine are lagging behind.' (See here).


This is nothing less than a call for the Church to abandon its teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil acts.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was solemnly promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1992, teaches that there are explicit kinds of human acts, specified by the object of moral choice, which are always morally wrong because a willingness to choose an object of this kind demonstrates a disordered will (i.e., moral evil).  The Catechism explains that, "A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together.  An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting 'in order to be seen by men').  The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety.  There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil." (1755). 

The same Catechism identifies various kinds of intrinsically evil acts, proscribed by absolute norms.  For example, the intentional killing of the innocent (2273), specific examples of which are infanticide (2268) abortion (2273) and mercy killing or euthanasia (2277); masturbation (2352), fornication (2353) adultery (2380-2381) and homosexual acts (2357).
If one is to be faithful to Christ and His Church, one may not assert that what the Magisterium teaches is false and that the faithful possess a right to reject its teaching and substitute it with their own opinions or those of dissenting theologians.  But this is precisely what Marianne Duddy-Burke is doing.  She is agitating for a change in the Church's teaching while suggesting that the Church needs to "catch up" with those who are "very affirming of gay people," (in other words, who condone homosexual acts). 

But the Church, while respecting the homosexual person (CCC, 2358), cannot affirm acts which are intrinsically evil.  Which is why the Catechism states clearly that, "Homosexual persons are called to chastity." (2359).  In his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 113, Pope John Paul II warns that, "dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God."  In the face of such dissent, a dissent which harms the Church's communion, Pope John Paul II insists that, "the Church's Pastors have the duty to act in conformity with their apostolic mission, insisting that the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must be preserved" (No. 113).

Has Cardinal O'Malley done this?  Has he acted in conformity with his apostolic mission to address Ms. Duddy-Burke's public dissent from the Church's teaching regarding homosexual acts?  How about Father Emile "Mike" Boutin's dissent from Church teaching?  Thus far there has been nothing from the Boston Archdiocese but silence.  But the same archdiocese managed to find the time to accuse Boston Catholic bloggers faithful to the Magisteium of harming the community of the faithful.  Pope John Paul II never said that fidelity to the Magisterium is opposed to ecclesial communion.  But rather dissent.

Why the silence from Cardinal O'Malley?  What do you think?  And more to the point: Why is it that the Church in Boston finds it so easy to partner with individuals who are engaging in intrinsically evil acts but so difficult to partner with Catholics faithful to the Magisterium?  While you wrestle with that, let me finish this post with another quotation from Marianne Duddy-Burke, taken from an article she authored for The Huffington Post:

"We will be looking for someone to fill Senator Kennedy's shoes--and no one will. But perhaps his leadership can give hope to the many Catholics who feel their values on LGBT issues do not agree with what they hear from their bishops. Ted Kennedy confirmed that progressive Catholics can live out their deep convictions and genuine faith even when these convictions differ from those of the church hierarchy."  See here.


God save the Boston Archdiocese!