What the Pope said ... I spoke too soon.

Mr. Cruz and Pope Francis.

“I saw a compassionate man, I saw someone who was caring for someone, 

not worrying about if we are gay, straight, brown, white. 

He was hearing from someone who has been hurt, abused,” Mr. Cruz 

The story and commentary is growing and getting dissected.

Not to worry.  Prayer obtains all.  I should have known better than to respond to the story so quickly, but it is a really good reminder of how deeply I need 'to allow myself to be taught', to paraphrase St. John of the Cross.

So anyway.  I think I get it now. What the Holy Father reportedly said is entirely consistent with his way of approaching those alienated from the Church. It is consistent with his style of evangelization and his concept of the Church as field hospital.

Having more background on the story helped me out - Juan Carlos Cruz was reportedly discredited by the Chilean bishops, whose spokesmen pointed out that he was gay and therefore unreliable, a blame and shame the victim strategy.  So it fits that the Holy Father would make such a comment privately and personally, without feeling the need to hold up the catechism and point out what actual teaching is.  I'm sure Mr. Cruz knew it already.  It was a private exchange and was a kindly affirmation of an individual person, and as I've said before, it was not 'for me' nor did it change Catholic teaching.  I'm not sure the Pope expected it to be made public, nor did he intend it as a correction of doctrinal teaching, and I highly doubt he will clarify it.  

My initial reaction had more to do with how media and social media especially erupted, and it reveals how deeply my own 'doctrinal adhesion' if you will, became a barrier to a basic sense of empathy. On one level, it reveals my own self-righteousness based upon my personal sense of 'dogmatic fidelity'.  (It kind of adds credence to what Pope Francis warns us all about regarding strains of 'Neo-Pelagianism and Neo-Gnosticism' infecting Catholics.)  

That said, it's amazing how many outside the Church, especially former practicing Catholic celebrities, seemed to have understood the gesture immediately.  I know conservative writers seem to think 'liberals' consider the Pope's gesture to be a sea change in Catholic doctrinal teaching, but I don't see it that way at all.  Of course Fr. Martin, S.J. might see it that way, yet so do traditionalists, who are already predicting the Youth Synod will be corrupted by the 'liberal' POV.  This sort of projection of what could happen or not happen is typical of those who have come through the culture wars, and it is outside my expertise and competence.  It's also very often completely devoid of charity.

Again, I love the Holy Father and I am grateful for his humble leadership.

I forgot I had written about the Chilean scandal in 2015 here.

Born that way ... redux.

Mr. Peabody here...

Or "Socially constructed"?

These discussions never seem to get old.

So anyway.  I'm against it - the idea that you are born that way - except in rare cases, I should probably add.  I've spent my entire life trying to figure out what went wrong - I'm still not sure - but I know without a doubt that I was born a male, and all my life I was very happy about it.  So happy I could almost chime in with Tevye singing, “Shelo Asani Isha”: “Blessed are you Lord… for not making me a woman”.  Although if I ran around singing that I would most assuredly be accused of being gynephobic - and maybe I was - but I wasn't born that way...  I definitely know that.

Which leads me to a very insightful essay by Anthony Esolen, titled- you guessed it!  Born That Way.  Citing anecdotal examples of a few famous men with same sex attraction, as well as their conflicted childhood experiences, Esolen makes a good argument against the born that way proponents.

Drunkenness, hatred, loneliness, missing fathers, rape, molestation, over-mothering, all these are inevitable when a certain kind of boy is born. - Anthony Esolen - read the rest here.

I know!  But how do you explain SSA in men who have solid families?  A loving mom and dad?  A well provided, integrated life?  I don't know.  Neither does the Church, the Catechism helps us understand that  its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.  Catholics know that, yet trying to understand these inclinations is helpful - especially to those who go through periods of struggle; seeking to live chastely, making friends, career choices, family, and so on.  Striving for authentic self-knowledge in the way of perfection - or rather, becoming holy - the sanctification of one's life.

Such views are controversial today - but necessary.  I think many of the men Anthony Esolen cites, as well as other famous 'tragic figures' have had a host of other problems coping with real life and relationships as a result of their dysfunctional development.  Many behaviors may have been learned or acquired and forged into habits to such a degree their existence was defined by them.  Understanding how one turned out is one thing, allowing ourselves to be formed and guided is another.  The Church doesn't require more than repentance and conversion from sin and to live chastely.  The grace of God accomplishes the rest.

Looking over my life, I can see the effects of grace.  The forgiveness of sins, the healing of serious wounds.  "I run the way of your commands; you give freedom to my heart."  Ps. 119

You are what you are - as God made you - not what social constructs tell you you are.  Sounds a bit like an argument for 'genderlessness' huh?  It's not.  "God made them male and female" - Genesis.

That's all for today Sherman.