The Controversy over Ordaining Gay’s: This Explains a Lot

In his visits to our parish, Charlottesville resident and University of Virginia Faculty Religion Professor Gerald Fogarty, S.J. has touched on the difference between Roman and Anglo Saxon attitudes towards the law. Much of his bookThe Vatican and the American Hierarchy from 1870 to 1965 is about the history of misunderstandings between the two. This all came back to mind when I read John Allen’s At the Vatican, Exceptions Make the Rule in the New York Times on Tuesday. (My refusal to look at the NYT because it requires a $49 subscription for access to several parts of the paper was short lived.) Allen writes:

THE forthcoming Vatican document on gays in seminaries will unleash a wrenching debate about Catholicism and homosexuality, but one thing it is certain not to mean is that in the future there will be no gays in the priesthood. The continued presence of gays in the priesthood will be the product not just of difficulties in enforcement, or the dishonesty of potential candidates, but also of design.

Although this is a difficult point for many Anglo-Saxons to grasp, when the Vatican makes statements like "no gays in the priesthood," it doesn't actually mean "no gays in the priesthood." It means, "As a general rule, this is not a good idea, but we all know there will be exceptions."

Understanding this distinction requires an appreciation of Italian concepts of law, which hold sway throughout the thought world of the Vatican. The law, according to such thinking, expresses an ideal. It describes a perfect state of affairs from which many people will inevitably fall short. This view is far removed from the typical Anglo-Saxon approach, which expects the law to dictate what people actually do.

This led me in a three new directions. First, that I should pull out my copy of Fr. Fogarty’s book, and re-read it after 20 years. Unlikely.

Second, I wonder if this explains much of the liberal vs. conservative controversy that we see in Catholic Blogging circles. My guess is that the argument over denying communion to politicians who have a less than hard line position on abortion is partly about attitudes towards the law. (For my own position on this go here)
We see Ales Res
wishing for a more peaceful controversy “If only we could get that side of St. Blog's to talk peacefully to the other side, for whom I'll use Nathan Nelson as an example.”

Nathan Nelson has invited conservatives to a dialogue. I suggest attitude towards the law should be part of the discussion.

I also suggest that UVA professor James Davidson Hunter has a better distinction that works better than liberal vs. conservative -progressive vs. orthodox. I’ve posted frequently on this one. Start here

If Allen is right, and I think he is, we could introduce much needed civility - even charity - into the controversies that populate the Catholic Blogosphere - by asking ourselves how much of our positions are doctrinal and how much are motivated by Anglo-Saxon or Roman attitudes towards the law.

Comments

[Funky Dung]

"We see Ales Res
wishing for a more peaceful controversy"

correction: "Res" should be "Rarus"