Gay/French/Catholic singularity megathread

[Martinus]

being a part of a club that doesn't want you as a member is not just stupid but also demeaning.

they do want you.  Well, your money, first.  Yourself, if you avoid sin (sex outside of wedlock wich is only for procreation).  Or if you give tons of money, confess, swear you won't commit sin again.

Exactly. So no they don't want you. What I am talking about are gays who consider themselves Catholic and keep asking the church to stop considering gay sex a sin.

[viper37]

being a part of a club that doesn't want you as a member is not just stupid but also demeaning.

they do want you.  Well, your money, first.  Yourself, if you avoid sin (sex outside of wedlock wich is only for procreation).  Or if you give tons of money, confess, swear you won't commit sin again.

Exactly. So no they don't want you. What I am talking about are gays who consider themselves Catholic and keep asking the church to stop considering gay sex a sin.

of course I knew what you were referring to   I was joking.

Church not considering gay sex a sin will never happen.  Don't think they will stop considering sex outside of wedlock a sin either.

[Razgovory]

Of course not.  They won't stop considering masturbating a sin or usury or you know, being born.  Nearly everything you do is a sin, so it's not that big a deal.  You simply confess it.  The focus on homosexuality as a sin to the exclusion of all other sins (such as being a telemarketer), seems odd to me.  I think it has more to do with homophobia then theology.

[Sheilbh]

I think it's more to do with the media's interest in sexual morality and the American culture wars to be honest.

Francis is about to release the 'environmental' encyclical which is driving conservatives in the US mad and exciting the media. Benedict had already written extensively on the environment and been described as the first green Pope. Conservatives didn't care because they perceived him as 'one of them' and the media didn't for much the same reason.

[grumbler]

I think it's more to do with the media's interest in sexual morality and the American culture wars to be honest.

Francis is about to release the 'environmental' encyclical which is driving conservatives in the US mad and exciting the media. Benedict had already written extensively on the environment and been described as the first green Pope. Conservatives didn't care because they perceived him as 'one of them' and the media didn't for much the same reason.

I didn't know conservatives in the US cared that much about papal pronouncements.  Maybe I'm just not as close to them as you are.

[Sheilbh]

I didn't know conservatives in the US cared that much about papal pronouncements.  Maybe I'm just not as close to them as you are.

They have. Though largely the Catholic ones which I didn't realise - I had no idea Rush Limbaugh was even a nominal Catholic

But the stuff by some of these guys does then tend to percolate among wider 'movement conservative' comments. The most controversial aspect has been his attack on western capitalism. I suspect if his encyclical on the environment is similarly strident we'll get another bout then. It's a peculiarly American thing because nowhere else in the world have so many Catholics embraced the sort of Republican view on the economy. You look at Catholic critiques from other countries and it's largely restricted to the traditionalists.

Douthat's good on the types of criticism Francis:

Who Are Pope Francis's Critics?
MARCH 12, 2015 4:56 PM March 12, 2015 4:56 pm 85 Comments

The latest cover of the new New Republic features Elizabeth Stoker Bruenig taking on conservative anxieties about Pope Francis's possible "radicalism." The essay isn't just about the pope; it offers a larger critique of the way that conservatives, Catholic and otherwise, relate to and interpret the human/Western/Christian past. I have a few disagreements with this depiction, and a few critical generalizations I'd make about the liberal tendency in Catholic thinking and debate right now. But I'll save those for another post; for now I think it would be helpful for the discussion of Catholicism in the Francis era to spend some time distinguishing between the different groups who have doubts, or flirt with having doubts, about this pontificate, because in Bruenig's account they run together a bit and I think the distinctions are actually enormously important.

A preliminary point to make is that Francis's genuinely strident critics — as opposed to skeptics or fretters or unsettled observers — are quite few in number. "The differences in opinion between Francis and the movement collectively known as the 'American right' appear especially numerous," Bruenig writes, "and unusually bitter." She has examples — I'm one of them — and they do add up to a current (or currents) of criticism, but not all of them/us are obviously "bitter," the American right is a lot bigger than a few pundits and bloggers, and it's worth noting that the divide she sees opening up is largely invisible in public polling. In the latest Pew survey, for instance, the pope is just as popular (and he is very popular) among Catholics who vote Republican as among Catholics who vote Democratic, and he has slightly higher net favorables among self-described "conservative" Catholics than among self-described "moderates" and "liberals." To the extent that the anxieties Bruenig identifies are visible in polling at all, they may show up in the somewhat elevated number of conservative Catholics who say their views of Francis are "mostly favorable" rather than "very favorable," or the pope's slightly higher net-unfavorables among Catholic Republicans — but that "higher" means a net of 10 percent, compared to 7 percent for Catholic Democrats, which is hardly the stuff of deep, bitter divides. (Pew's old polling on Benedict XVI didn't break things down by party or ideology, but I'd lay odds that his unfavorable numbers among Catholics who self-identify as liberal were much higher than than Francis's currently are among any definition of the American Catholic right.)

So what we're talking about here, what Bruenig is analyzing, is for now more a tendency within the intelligentsia (and the world of comment threads, but perhaps I repeat myself) than a large-scale phenomenon. And its various elements don't all fit easily under a single label or description. Instead, I would divide them into three groups:

1. Traditionalists. These are Catholics defined by their preference/zeal for the Tridentine Rite Mass and their rejection of (or at least doubts about) various reforms of the Second Vatican Council. Some attend mainstream parishes that offer the mass in Latin, others are affiliated with orders specifically organized around the old rite, others are connected to parishes run by the (arguably; it's a long argument) schismatic Society of Saint Pius X. There's lots of variation within traditionalist ranks (my friend Michael Brendan Dougherty, cited by Bruenig, is a "trad" of a different sort than, say, this fellow), but the important things to emphasize are first, that their numbers (in the American context and otherwise) are quite small; second, that their concerns are not usually the same as those of the typical John Paul II-admiring conservative Catholic (traditionalists were often not admirers of the Polish pope); and third, that their skepticism of Pope Francis was probably inevitable and pretty clearly mutual.

For instance, Bruenig notes that Rorate Caeli, a traditionalist site, greeted Jorge Bergoglio's election by describing him as "a sworn enemy of the traditional Mass." But what she doesn't mention is that as Francis, he has often vindicated those fears: He has demoted the traditional mass's most prominent champion within the Vatican, cracked down on a prominent traditionalist order, and frequently singled out traditionalist tendencies and practices for criticism in his remarks. Traditionalism has, it's fair to say, a paranoid streak and then some, but even paranoids have enemies, and since the Tridentine mass was essentially suppressed in much of the church for a generation and more, Francis's moves have not exactly been calculated to reassure Catholics of this persuasion about their place within the church.

This doesn't mean traditionalists are "right" and the pope is "wrong." (If you want to understand where Francis might be coming from, consider that the SSPX seminary in Argentina during his years as archbishop of Buenos Aires was run by this charmer.) But it means that the conflict here has very specific contours, and the stakes involved are distinctive and not particularly influenced by, say, Francis's social and economic vision (which some traditionalists find entirely congenial; see this Rorate Caeli post for an example). Which makes it very different from my second case study ...

2. Catholics who are economic conservatives or libertarians. These are Catholic writers and personalities who have publicly disagreed with the pope's statements on the economy, capitalism and (pre-emptively, regarding his looming encyclical) the environment; in its crudest form, their criticism proceeds from the same premises as the (not-at-all Catholic) Rush Limbaugh's famous suggestion that Francis is "preaching Marxism" when he critiques the global economy's rapacious side. But it's noteworthy, I think, that the loudest voices here are not usually figures particularly known for their Catholicism. Bruenig quotes Stephen Moore of Heritage, for instance, whose religious affiliation I was unaware of before he invoked it while criticizing the pontiff on green issues, and Sean Hannity of Fox, who's more publicly pious but is also perfectly comfortable playing the cafeteria Catholic on ... well, watch this clip. And her other examples of conservative writers who have gone hard after Francis's forthcoming green encyclical are (meaning no disrespect) relatively obscure. Figures of greater prominence have been much more circumspect (to my knowledge, Michael Novak and George Weigel aren't co-bylining essays denouncing the pontiff as a socialist), and the "Francis is too anti-capitalist" critique has no purchase whatsoever that I can see within the institutional American church.

Instead, on a range of what get labeled social justice or "seamless garment" issues (the death penalty, immigration, etc.) it's hard to find much daylight between what the press considers the conservative flank of the U.S. episcopate (an Archbishop Charles Chaput, say) and the pope. And examples like the recent joint editorial on the death penalty by an ideologically-diverse group of Catholic periodicals suggest that among lay Catholics, too, there isn't all that much pro- or anti-papal polarization going on around social justice issues.

Which is not to say that there isn't a lively debate about the church's social teaching (I have my own doubts about that death penalty editorial, and you don't have to look hard to find critiques), or that Francis hasn't influenced that debate. But it's still mostly a new version of a very old discussion among American Catholics — one that goes back to the Eisenhower-era controversy surrounding William F. Buckley Jr.'s criticisms of the encylical "Mater et Magistra" and extends through Reagan-era arguments about economic policy — about how to apply Catholic social teaching in the American context, and whether that teaching can or should be reconciled with what you might call Anglo-Saxon capitalism.

Under John Paul the balance in that debate (arguably; it's a long argument) tipped a little bit more in democratic capitalism's favor than had previously been the case; under Benedict the papal perspective arguably tipped back in a more explicitly social democratic direction (to some overt criticism from neoconservatives in the United States); under Francis it has taken on a more developing-world, Latin-American flavor, which has tipped things leftward in certain ways and also put a new complexion on the discussion. So too have various non-papal developments: For instance, cultural trends in the United States have encouraged a modest revival of skepticism among self-consciously orthodox Catholic thinkers about the faith's compatibility with both political and economic liberalism ... though at the same time, those same trends have complicated Catholic support for and cooperation with social programs and provided grist for Catholic skeptics of the welfare state.

Where the debate will go I'm not sure, but for now I would stand by what I've written on the subject, both soon after Francis's accession and then a little over a year ago: These discussions are healthy, it's good for conservative Catholics in the U.S. to be challenged to do some hard thinking on these issues, there's nothing threatening to church unity about that challenge, and to the extent that "movement conservatism" as a whole turns explicitly anti-papal over Francis's economic pronouncements (and I don't expect it will) so much the worse for the movement. Which differs dramatically from my read on the pope and ...

3. Doctrinal conservatives. These are conservative American Catholics whose Francis-era anxieties center around the issues raised during last fall's synod on the family, and particularly around Cardinal Walter Kasper's proposal to admit Catholics in second marriages (which the church does not recognize as marriages at all) to communion — an issue I may have written about from time to time. Many of them are also economic conservatives and likely Republican voters, but not all, and notwithstanding that overlap they mostly regard the stakes in the Kasper/divorce debates as much more theologically significant than the stakes in, say, the pope's forthcoming environmental encyclical. As with the economic debate, the more prominent the commentator, the more circumspect they tend to be in directly criticizing Francis on these issues: The tendency, instead, is almost always to separate the pope from the Kasper faction, critiquing that faction vigorously while reassuring readers that no doctrinal change is in the offing. (My own approach here is distinctive, and perhaps imprudent.) But at the same time, the pattern in which the debate has proceeded, I think, leaves little doubt that if Francis were to adopt Kasper's proposals or others like them there would necessarily be much more open opposition from this group.

And crucially from the perspective of church politics, the doctrinal-conservative view of the stakes in the synod debates is shared by many Catholics around the world who are not at all American-style conservatives, and who have no real problem with and may even be enthusiastic about Francis on economic or ecological issues. (As is the case, for instance, for some of the African and European cardinals on the doctrinal-conservative side in the synod clashes.). Which is why analyzing this debate mostly through the lens of American movement conservatism (I'm pretty sure Limbaugh would be fine with the Kasper proposal!) and American politics, or conjoining the two the way Bruenig's essay sometimes does, misses the bigger picture for this pontificate and the future of the Catholic Church.

That picture — coming around to the point of this rambling taxonomy — is simply this. A future in which Francis's "radicalism" (a term that would require yet another post to unpack, so I won't) is defined by his approach to the social gospel, globalization and the poor is one in which the tension with traditionalists will remain intense but not high-profile, in which the tension with free-marketeers and libertarians will percolate in interesting ways, and in which conservative doubts about this pontificate will remain a particularly American phenomenon and a mostly elite-level tendency overall. And it's a future, at this point, that I would welcome, since I'd be very happy to spend more time arguing with Bruenig about the church's historical relationship to the welfare state and less time arguing about German cardinals and divorce.

But a future in which this pope's "radicalism" extends to moves that look like an implicit change of doctrine around communion and/or marriage ... in which it's not just Hannity but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that's in conflict with the throne of Peter ... well, in that future the economic issues would become a sideshow, and the pope's existing conflict with traditionalists would become the template for a doctrinal conflict that's wider, global, and essentially unknowable in its results. And it's that future, for reasons that I believe are more Christian than "conservative", that I'd very much prefer the Catholic faith be spared.

[viper37]

Of course not.  They won't stop considering masturbating a sin or usury or you know, being born.  Nearly everything you do is a sin, so it's not that big a deal.  You simply confess it.  The focus on homosexuality as a sin to the exclusion of all other sins (such as being a telemarketer), seems odd to me.  I think it has more to do with homophobia then theology.

That's because you are expected to repent and really mean it.
Confessing you had homosexual sex is one thing, confessing it and doing it again, repeatedly is another.

The official doctrine is that gays should not engage in sexual activity.  So long as they remain chaste or marry with women, gays are welcome to the Church.  Punish the sin, not the sinner, and all that.

[Martinus]

Yeah, it's like being divorced. It removes you from communion as your sin is continuous.

That being said, I suppose two people of the same sex living in a committed but sex less relationship should probably be fine from the Catholic perspective. So you would only have to confess your affairs, i.e. like normal people.

[Razgovory]

Of course not.  They won't stop considering masturbating a sin or usury or you know, being born.  Nearly everything you do is a sin, so it's not that big a deal.  You simply confess it.  The focus on homosexuality as a sin to the exclusion of all other sins (such as being a telemarketer), seems odd to me.  I think it has more to do with homophobia then theology.

That's because you are expected to repent and really mean it.
Confessing you had homosexual sex is one thing, confessing it and doing it again, repeatedly is another.

The official doctrine is that gays should not engage in sexual activity.  So long as they remain chaste or marry with women, gays are welcome to the Church.  Punish the sin, not the sinner, and all that.

Yet there still are telemarketers ( a sin against man and God), yet doesn't get a lot of press.

[viper37]

Yeah, it's like being divorced. It removes you from communion as your sin is continuous.

Yes.  Up 'til 50-60 years ago, divorcees could not receive communion in Church in Quebec.  Priests visited families to make sure the women were doing their conjugal duties, encouraging them to procreate.
nowadays, they had to adapt and bend the rules, otherwise, in some places, the churches would be empty.  Technically, you are still barred from communion, but it involves you and God, the priest does not ask questions nor pass judgement.

That being said, I suppose two people of the same sex living in a committed but sex less relationship should probably be fine from the Catholic perspective. So you would only have to confess your affairs, i.e. like normal people.

Normal people don't confess unless they're caught

[derspiess]

Francis is about to release the 'environmental' encyclical which is driving conservatives in the US mad and exciting the media.