Comments | rayvaillancourt: My email to the one-man "Catholic Action League"

rayvaillancourt

My email to the one-man "Catholic Action League"

May 14, 2010 10:48

Mr. Doyle,

I find your comments in today's Globe troubling.

C.J. Doyle, executive director of Catholic Action League of Massachusetts, called upon the archdiocese to “vigorously defend’’ the school’s decision to revoke admission to the youngster.

“The real question here is why two people who radically repudiate the moral teachings of Catholicism ( Read more... )

Comments 9

Woot tinuviellen May 14 2010, 15:03:11 UTC

Sing it, Ray.

(Seriously, sing that to the Globe! You ought to.)

valancy_s May 14 2010, 19:34:17 UTC

Obviously the Archdiocese made the right call and exclusion is always a bad practice. The issue the man's raising, though - the moral teachings of the Catholic Church on this subject - is one I have thought about, and looked for answers in scripture, catechism, and church practice.

The only place I have found what seemed to be clear direction was in the passage from Acts which was - coincidentally - the first reading this past Sunday at Mass. If you recall, there's major dissent in the early Church about which Jewish practices, if any, Christians should be required to follow. The disciples choose a group to pray and discern a decision about this issue, and this is the declaration of their conclusions:

"It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place on you any burden beyond these necessities, namely, to abstain from meat sacrificed to idols, from blood, from meats of strangled animals, and from unlawful marriage. If you keep free of these, you will be doing what is right."To me, that spoke pretty clearly. They ( ... )

rayvaillancourt May 17 2010, 16:16:01 UTC

The following is from the notes in my NAB regarding the Acts passage you quote ( ... )

valancy_s May 17 2010, 20:00:27 UTC

That is interesting. But the note in my NAB directs me to Leviticus 17-18, where the restrictions on sacrificed meat and unlawful marriage are spelled out explicitly. It's obvious that this is the part of the law the disciples are referring to in Acts, and it's not just about consanguinity - it forbids four things: incest, adultery, homosexual sex, and bestiality. Homosexuality wasn't "unknown at the time," and it's clear these were all "practices... especially abhorrent to Jews." I don't see how we can cross 1 off the 4 things of the forbidden list just because the trend of our culture has swung in favor of it.

I'd love to be convinced. It would make it a lot easier to live in an uberliberal community (as I do) if I could see my way around this. But I can't yet, so bring on the counter-arguments!

rayvaillancourt May 18 2010, 01:53:01 UTC

As for the dietary restrictions, why do Catholics not keep Kosher? In the early church, it was decided that those laws no longer applied in the New Covenant. It is a theme in Hebrews and Galatians, and made explicit in 1 Cor 8 and 1 Cor 10: 25-26 ( ... )

rayvaillancourt May 15 2010, 03:09:13 UTC

Here is the Church teaching on homosexuality in the Catechism. I'll add a few points in a new comment ( ... )

valancy_s May 17 2010, 20:10:14 UTC

Yes, I've read this before, but thank you for sharing it. I guess the trouble that I have is that most liberal Catholics I know are very vocal about the "respect, compassion, and sensitivity" part and refuse to even discuss the "acts of grave depravity" part. I do not believe in being hateful under any circumstances. (Which isn't to say I haven't been at times - sinner here - but I truly believe I haven't to anyone for this reason.) I just can't reconcile respect and compassion with acceptance. I see homosexuality in the same light as I see cheating or promiscuity, but where other Christians mostly share my view on the latter, I have been told off by Catholic friends (and family, ahem) for daring to class homosexuality as "wrong" at all. And I just don't see room for that exception to the rule either in the Bible or the Church's teachings, which you've so helpfully provided here. That is all I was trying to say.

rayvaillancourt May 15 2010, 03:33:55 UTC

The passage in Acts dealt with the issue of Jewish/Gentile relations in the Church. I would not take it as an exhaustive list of moral imperatives. Those rules are long gone in the Church, anyway ( ... )

valancy_s May 17 2010, 21:40:39 UTC

You make an excellent point about homosexuality being separated out from other sexual sins. There does seem to be some kind of legitimate hierarchy among sins (I mean, in addition to the venal/mortal thing, you don't get words like "grave depravity" and "abhorrent" thrown around for just anything) but it's not up to me to weigh them against each other, and certainly not to treat some people well and others badly based on a comparison of their weaknesses ( ... )