Cutting Room Floor 3

IC XC
✙
NI KA

Our Moral Theology Final was edited for presentation. There were some parts that I cut out which I think are important – not to the final, but to the praxis. This series is made up of those parts. This one, Part 3, is the part that should be deemed the most important, but to have included it in the presentation, even in part, would have opened up a whole series of things that needed to be addressed. Even as my text was presented, the Professor picked up on the gap and asked for further explanation: The answer to the question was about 1/3 as long as the original presentation!

Existential Dignity: Expanded Text

Existential Dignity is touched on in ¶8 of Dignitas Infinita. It is not, however, given a very full treatment.

The last meaning is that of existential dignity, which is the type of dignity implied in the ever-increasing discussion about a “dignified” life and one that is “not dignified.” For instance, while some people may appear to lack nothing essential for life, for various reasons, they may still struggle to live with peace, joy, and hope. In other situations, the presence of serious illnesses, violent family environments, pathological addictions, and other hardships may drive people to experience their life conditions as “undignified” vis-à-vis their perception of that ontological dignity that can never be obscured.

In the second post of this series, social dignity was defined as the environment in which one finds oneself. Existential Dignity is subtly different: “How one understands oneself in the social environment”. The document says it’s not the “undignified way of life” but rather being caused to “experience their life conditions as “undignified”” and to have no “peace, joy, and hope” in their ontological dignity.

What is the Ontological Dignity of the Human Person? Taking from Paragraphs 7 and 9 of the DDF text, we find:

The most important among these is the ontological dignity that belongs to the person as such simply because he or she exists and is willed, created, and loved by God. Ontological dignity is indelible and remains valid beyond any circumstances in which the person may find themselves. Finally, it is worth mentioning that the classical definition of a person as an “individual substance of a rational nature” clarifies the foundation of human dignity. As an “individual substance,” the person possesses ontological dignity (that is, at the metaphysical level of being itself). Having received existence from God, humans are subjects who “subsist”—that is, they exercise their existence autonomously. The term “rational” encompasses all the capacities of the human person, including the capacities of knowing and understanding, as well as those of wanting, loving, choosing, and desiring; it also includes all corporeal functions closely related to these abilities. “Nature” refers to the conditions particular to us as human beings, which enable our various operations and the experiences that characterize them; in this sense, nature is the “principle of action.” We do not create our nature; we hold it as a gift and we can nurture, develop, and enhance our abilities. By exercising the freedom to cultivate the riches of our nature, we grow over time.

An Orthodox Deacon once asked a person who experiences same sex attraction, “Do you think you’re different from me?” For many who choose to engage their SSA with physical expression, the anwser would be yes. There seems to be an entirely different class of person in this experience. One is not at all like the other. If the answer is yes, it has ramifications for both Christology and soteriology, for “what is not assumed is not healed” (St Gregory Nazianzen). If the answer is no – no I am not different from you – then the implication is that “While my temptations may differ from yours, we are both called to the same glory, to the same salvation, the same unity. And further more, we are both called to struggle against our temptations, and to seek to live within the divine plan. That plan is no different for me than it is for you.” Thus one cannot say, “God made me this way and therefore I can act on it.”

For many in the Gay Community, especially those who are politically active, “gay” is something ontologically different from “straight”. They create a new identity on this ontological distinction, on the claim that, “yes, I am different from you”.

Reading the Natural Law in our bodies, we can see that man was made for woman and woman for man. Not only do the bodies “fit together” but they do so in order to produce a necessary and natural end: the furtherance of the species. In the context of a monogamous relationship this also builds the union in the marriage. In the Church, this natural relationship is given a sacramental status, showing the self-sacrificial union between Christ and his Church. This union in sacrifice, Kenosis, or self emptying is what the Church receives from the Son of God and what the Son receives from God the Father who is forever pouring himself out into the Son, as the Son – whose body includes the Church – pours himself out for the life of the world. The Holy Spirit, the bond of Unity, dwells in us as he does in Eternity, uniting our one Human nature (through Jesus our mediator) to the Holy Trinity. This is our dignity – even for those who reject Jesus! This call to divine union, this universal call to holiness, excludes no one – not even those who would reject the call. EVery last one of us is called – every last one of us has the dignity of an “individual subtance of a rational nature” called to personal unity with God. “The human being is an animal who has received the vocation to become God,” St. Basil said. “The human vocation is to fulfill one’s humanity by becoming God through grace” (Olivier Clement, The Roots of Christian Mysticism (Hyde Park, NY: City Press, 1993), 76. I read this book back in the late 1990s, but my memory is not so awesome! Googling the exact text, I found the citation here.).

This touches on the language we use in the Church. While we have referred in these pages to “gay community” and – in the abstract – to “gay friends”. The writer has tried to stear away from saying “a gay man” or “a gay person.” There is no such thing. Yet, the language the church uses can often unintentionally make this claim. Here is one footnote in a document on the issue:

Catechism of the Catholic Church (editio typica, 1997), nn. 2357-2358. Cf. also the various Documents of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Declaration Persona Humana on certain questions concerning sexual ethics (29 December 1975); Letter Homosexualitatis Problema to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons (1 October 1986); Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons (23 July 1992); Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons (3 June 2003). With regard to homosexual inclinations, the Letter Homosexualitatis Problema states that “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder” (n. 3).

Note how many times “homosexual persons” was used. Yes, that is shorthand for “persons with homosexual tendencies” but it is also shorthand for “gay people”. It implies – to one inclined to read in a certain way – that “gay people” are an ontological category. One step beyond this footnote in the right direction is healing. One step beyond in the wrong direction is the mistaken demand that “even the Church says I’m made this way, so why can’t I act on it?” The Church says, “The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation..” But she does so in a document called, “On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.” There, again, if one were to read this with an ill-formed conscience, one could easily say, “This class of persons exists and it is unjust to deal with them in this way.” When we are in active ministry – even talking amongs ourselves – we must be careful with our language.

Anything that moves us away from our divine, saving calling is, as Saint Paul says, “Para Physin” or against our nature. Here, “nature” does not mean “things I feel like were mine from birth” but the actual nature of humanity which we all share – including the call from God to live in holiness of life and in purity of heart. Thus, the desire to engage in sexual expression outside of the natural law is against our nature – “intrinsically disordered” as the Catechism says. Incorrectly claiming “this is who I am”, “this is my nature” leads directly to “experience their life conditions as “undignified” vis-à-vis their perception of that ontological dignity”. They do not judge their condition as “undignified” but rather the claim their condition – not in keeping with rightly ordered human dignity – is, itself, dignified. They glory in their shame, as St Paul says. The Orthodox Church in America says, “Homosexuality is to be approached as the result of humanity’s rebellion against God, and so against its own nature and well-being. It is not to be taken as a way of living and acting for men and women made in God’s image and likeness.” That is, it is beneath our dignity to act this way.

The OCA goes on to say, “People with homosexual tendencies are to be helped to admit these feelings to themselves and to others who will not reject or harm them. They are to seek assistance in discovering the specific causes of their homosexual orientation, and to work toward overcoming its harmful effects in their lives.” (Op Cit, emphasis added.) It was, in fact, this last line that resulted in the present author seeking out, with the blessings of his spiritual father, an active chapter of the Courage Apostolate.

This process of digging in and overcoming is far more advanced than simply “stop doing bad sex things”. This is healing to their existential dignity. It gives “peace, hope, and joy”. And it moves them to see that the calling to salvation is, itself, their nature, their actual dignity as children of God. Through the grace of the Holy Spirit extended in the sacraments and mediated in the Church, the person can be led to have a life more fully in keeping with their Ontological Dignity.

This opened up a painful section of my original presentation which I include in full here, and it will be the last thing rescued from the Cutting Room Floor.

On 5 November 2005, the Congregation for Christian Education (as it then was) released an Instruction called Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders. This links directly with the OCA’s document above, viz, the “harmful effects”. Section 2 introduces one “effect” thusly: “Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.”

This is something the present writer struggles with, but it is also common in many areas of the Church populated by what was once called the “lavender mafia.” In a zoom conversation, one person commented (in what she thought was a supportive way), “Of course he displayed that good natured misogyny women have to expect from their gay male friends.” Another woman, commenting in a private conversation in a way she intended as “fraternal correction” for a priest who experiences SSA, “As any woman can confirm, when she is talking to a gay man, his eyes are always elsewhere in the room.” The present writer can also confirm that struggling to relate to men in a natural way is also difficult: even when boundaries are not crossed, there is a constant sense of I hope I didn’t do anything bad and what did he mean by that? Did one cross into flirtation? In fact, some men of any orientation enjoy being flirted with – it’s a huge boost to their “male ego”. Thus the subtle game of “maybe this is sexual” becomes one of mutual mental abuse.

This is an ongoing struggle in my own discernment as it would be for anyone. I’ve heard the claim that, “Gay people have special gifts they bring to ministry…” That is only true in that our wounds are of a particular kind and, properly cared for, can be healed and strengthened by Grace in ways that other sorts of wounds cannot be. Yet they are exactly wounds – it takes the Holy SPirit to turn our weaknesses, our brokenness into his tools for the salvation of the world, we are “…called to fulfil God’s will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter.”