Ubiquitous and Protean

Buried in the substantial disinformation throughout the Rev. Andrew R. Baker’s Ordination and Same Sex Attraction (9/30), old chestnuts about allegedly effeminate affective manners and proper masculine behavior most alerted my historian’s antennae. As Carolyn Dean shows in her fine recent study of sexuality between 1918 and 1940 (The Frail Social Body: Pornography, Homosexuality, and Other Fantasies in Interwar France [2000]), the crushing evidence of World War I trenches forced postwar medical doctors to abandon their fin-de-sicle belief that a male’s feminine appearance indicated same sex attraction. As a consequence, anxiety ran rampant among cultural critics throughout the 1920’s and 1930’s: if effeminate men might be heterosexual while masculine men might actually be inverts, then appearances could no longer be relied upon. Anyone might be passing for straight, raising the specter that inversion was both more ubiquitous and protean than previously thought. (The example of the burly rugby-playing hero of Sept. 11’s Flight 93, Mark Binghama gay mannicely illustrates the present-day anxieties over prudent doubt and moral certitude.) In several ways, Father Baker’s essay reflects the very latest in 19th-century thought: fascinating reading for the professional historian, but perhaps not more widely helpful.

Stephen Schloesser, S.J.

Fewer Whiners

Congratulations on the choice of articles for the Sept. 23 issue. These were real articles about the daily problems that people encounter. It is encouraging to hear that good people are still working so hard for the church. Fewer articles by whiners, nit-picking theologians and about the politics of the clergy would be appreciated. Maybe there is still hope for the church.

Michael F. Melloy

Variation

I write to disagree respectfully yet strongly with the position taken by the Rev. Andrew R. Baker in America’s issue of Sept. 30, opposing the ordination of men who happen to be homosexual in their orientation. Though all of the important points he has raised merit substantive discussion, I focus here on two of those points only.

First, I must take issue with Father Baker’s presentation of the way in which the phenomenon of homosexual orientation or same sex attraction might be most adequately understood. While not overlooking the insights contained in that presentation, I am dismayed by the fact that no mention at all is made of the great amount of scholarly work that has been done in the field of the empirical and human sciences regarding this phenomenon. Studies that I have undertaken in connection with my work in moral theology have brought to my attention the general consensus among scientists and psychologists that sexual orientation is a complex human reality, admitting of no single explanation. I have found a similar consensus that same sex orientation is not an abnormality nor an aberration, but rather a variation in human makeup that appears with statistical frequency and that, in many instances, does not in and of itself affect an individual in a deleterious way. Adding to my dismay is the fact that in mentioning some experts who believe that same sex attraction can be treated and even prevented with some degree of success, Father Baker does not acknowledge that this is an opinion held by few.

Second, I must object to what appears to be Father Baker’s assumption that men who happen to be same sex in their orientation will inevitably exhibit some or all of what he lists as significant negative aspects arguing against their suitability for holy orders. In general, I find those aspects alarmingly stereotypical and the discussion of them lacking in essential nuance. Moreover, while the church, in speaking to or of homosexual persons, has insisted repeatedly that human beings must never be reduced to their sexual orientation, this list could, even while greatly inaccurate, be read as doing just that.

My thanks to Father Baker for his thoughts and insights on this most important topic and to you, America, for the publication of both Father Baker’s and Bishop Gumbleton’s articles.

(Rev.) Robert J. Smith

Needs at This Time

The proposed national plenary council for U.S. bishops (Signs of the Times, 8/26) sounds like a desperate exercise in self-validation. The time would be better spent in a critical self-examination of bishops’ needs at this time in church history.

For example, what should be the job description of a bishop/cardinal in the 21st century? What should be the job description for a priest? What are the educational needs that will bring bishops/cardinals up to speed to become competent managers? This is a serious issue. What programs need to be devised for the continuing education of bishops/cardinals?

The teaching office of the bishops is a relic of a church that no longer exists. We are no longer a congregation of ignorant peasants. Many faithful Catholics are better educated than their bishops. Additionally, it is time to re-examine the truths that the Catholic Church teaches in the light of history, scientific discoveries and biblical scholarship. Bishops need to learn to listen again to theologians who have pondered these revelations of God’s presence in our midst.

There are even more frightening issues to be faced. Do these men dare stand up to the Vatican and assert that they, English-speaking ecclesial authorities, have the competency to decide what should be the English-language translations of biblical and liturgical texts? Do they dare stand up to the Vatican and say that there is a crisis in the number of priests, and say that they will ordain whomever they please to assure that the faithful will have access to the sacraments? Probably not. But some time soon, dynamic leadership will have to emerge to save the church.

Jim Harvey

Just War

I want to thank you for the very insightful article by John Langan, S.J., about whether or not we should invade Iraq (9/9). But I wish to offer some points for you to consider. First, the use of the term vigilante justice seems to be an oxymoron, based on the question raised about the justice being done by the aggrieved and angry party, which implies that it is more likely to be vengeance than justice.

Second, Father Langan seems to imply that if one could prove that the consequences of an invasion of Iraq can be mitigated, then such action might be acceptable. This can never be the case, because the primary consequence of such a unilateral action would be to undermine the rule of law. What makes us different from Iraq? We claim that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons, but we have more weapons than any other nation on earth. Isn’t our willingness to restrain our power and abide by international law the very essence of the difference between us and Iraq? Wouldn’t a unilateral invasion of Iraq destroy that difference? Wouldn’t it make us the most dangerous rogue nation in the world? If we got away with such an invasion, what would convince other countries that we can be trusted to restrain our power in the future?

Even if we are able to gain support from other countries in the region, wouldn’t a pre-emptive strike undermine the just war principles? The author chose to defer consideration of the just war principles until after all can agree that the goals for the region would not be hampered by an invasion of Iraq. That is a mistake. While I have serious reservations about the just war principles (to some extent because I do not believe that the church ever applies them honestly or in a timely manner), I believe it is a mistake to wait until after everyone agrees that a war is necessary to bring up the moral principles that should instruct such decisions. Once everyone believes that war is necessary, there is great pressure to bend the just war principles to conform to that belief.

Many are looking at the issue of war with Iraq in simplistic terms. Evil must be resisted. Your article has done much to remove the blinders from people’s eyes so that they can see the complexity of what they contemplate. But it does not challenge them to see the ultimate truth. If evil is to be resisted, why aren’t we resisting war itself? The just war principles give us permission to use evil to attain justice and security. But what good is justice and security when we have embraced evil?

Stephen D. Stratoti

Complicity

Pope John Paul II’s affirmation of humanitarian intervention, mentioned by Drew Christiansen, S.J., (8/12), contrasts with the U.S. policy of acting only if it is in its strategic interest. East Timor showed the tragic gulf between the two.

The East Timorese voted overwhelmingly for independence in a United Nations-mandated referendum, believing as they courageously went to the polls that they were under the protection of the world community of nations and, certainly, its superpower, the United States.

Instead, they were sheep to the slaughter, as militia gangs wrought carnage that Americans watched on television news for weeks.

The United States not only failed to act, fearing to offend Indonesia (though the United Nations had never recognized the bloody annexation of East Timor), but blocked Australia, East Timor’s near neighbor, from acting.

When the combat-ready Australian troops were finally allowed in as peacekeepers, the game was over. East Timor was a land of corpses, rape victims and rubble.

As we preen ourselves on the moral high ground in the world arena, we ought to look in the mirror. In East Timor and elsewhere we have been complicit in the loss of thousands of innocent lives.

(Rev.) George P. Carlin

Wise Investments

The call for an end to the Cuban embargo by John W. Donohue S.J. (Of Many Things, 7/15) is well intended, but should not be considered uncritically. Indeed, there are two considerations, both legal and moral, that should give us pause: collaboration and ideological apartheid. Is it moral for American tourists to stay at hotels where Cubans are not allowed, even if invited by foreign friends or relatives? Is it right for a baseball team to play in Cuba when tickets are doled out to government supporters, and Cuban players are barred from baseball because of suspicions that they are politically disloyal or potential defectors? Is it right for an intellectual to speak at a university, when dissidents have been expelled from the faculty and are not allowed to attend? Should American investors be allowed to build a factory where the politically incorrect are denied jobs or higher paying positions? Ideological apartheid is as objectionable as racial apartheid. Though we do not make the owners of a sweatshop in Asia responsible for poverty in the countries where they invest, we should make them responsible for conditions and wages in their factories. So too we should simply require that American companies and travelers not collaborate with political apartheid through their commercial or investment activities. And this rule should not single out Cuba, but should be applied to all foreign investments, while keeping an eye on those countries where violations are most likely to occur. That way the United States would not be imposing its values on other countries, but on its own citizens and companies.

Pedro J. Saavedra

Cautious Hope

The article by Thomas P. Rausch, S.J., linking Catholic and Evangelical theologies (7/15), is well crafted toward ecumenical hope. Another article is needed, however, to see the stark differences that indeed have grave implications for U.S. domestic and foreign policy. Most Evangelicals value charity but do not consider justice a Gospel imperative. In Central America, to the joy of elitist rulers, Evangelicals preach that poverty and the death of children are the will of God. Systemic sin is unacknowledged; financial success is the reward of right-eousness; weaponry is admired; enemies are satanic. An option for the poor or the oppressed matters little when the end-time is at hand. Why does this scare me about our president?

Robert J. Brophy

God in the Ripples and Waves

We want to compliment Valerie Schultz on her excellent reflection, God in the Tangled Sheets (7/1). We heartily endorse her point of view, except for two small quibbles. The first concerns the parents of those called to celibacy. One of our children is currently making final plans to join an order of nuns who work in South America. No one should feel sorry for us, even though our daughter’s decision has cut in half our chances of ever holding a biological grandchild. Perhaps we hear the wise words of Ms. Shultz’s father, It’s what makes the world go round, slightly differently from the way she does. We believe that the it is not grandchildren themselves, but the love reflected in their eyes. We have been blessed to see many ripples of love spread out from the small splash of our commitment to each other. It appears that this love will soon raise a wave that will reach all the way to Bolivia and wash over 50 or more young girls who have known far too little love in their lives. We stand in humble awe of what God is doing, and feel rewarded in ways we never could have imagined when we said I do 25 years ago.

Our second quibble comes from the last line of the meditation, which seems to imply that the Schultz household has no resident saints. We beg to differ, and suggest she look more carefully in her photo album, where we are sure she will find saints aplenty.

Joseph and Jane Kupin

Another Word

Every time I thought I just couldn’t handle another word, article or program on our current scandal, America would appear on my desk with its plenitude of scholarly, sane, informative articles. Your coverage over the past weeks has been outstanding! Each issue seemed even better than one before.

As someone who has spent the past 25 years teaching and writing about the role of the laity, baptism and the teachings of the Second Vatican Council and facilitating prayerful discernment decision-making throughout this country and down under, I was especially delighted to read Mary Jo Bane’s article Exit, Voice and Loyalty in the Church (6/3). Keep up your wonderful work!

Mary Benet McKinney, O.S.B.