Dismissives
Over at Disputations in Tom's fine post on Torture I had left a comment where I called justifying torture a form of relativism for conservatives. Often the ticking nuclear bomb scenario is used to justify torture. This is just relativism where you justify an evil act because of another evil act. In reply to my comment JCECIL3 said:
When Jeff Miller and I agree on something, those Catholics who disagree with us need to examine themselves.
I stand with Tom and Jeff above and all others who see it as extraordinarily clear that the Gospel and the Church do not condone torture under any circumstances.
I am about as liberal as Catholic bloggers get, and Jeff is pretty darn conservative. When you have both poles in the church calling something into question, along with Tom's fine quotation from an Ecumenical Council, it's time to admit you are not thinking with the Church.
We agree on this because I don't approach things via a conservative lens. Hopefully I see everything through a Catholic lens. Prior to entering the Church I would have had no problem with torture or the death-penalty used in almost all cases of murder. I try to take seriously what the Church teaches and where I have difficulties or personal preferences I research to find out why I am wrong (knowing that I am wrong). This has helped me to not only to understand these teaching, but also to fully accept them. There are too many that come to the Church with their own preferences and agendas and then start by arguing why the Church is wrong. You should be able to read through the Catechism without crossing out whole paragraphs with a black marker or adding your own paragraphs.
Steve on his blog on Homosexual Marriage in the Church said:
Personally, I think the first homosexual marriage in the Catholic church will be done by a female priest. Which means, don't look for it any time soon.
I agree with him. Of course since there will never be women priests, consequently they will also be no homosexual marriage accepted by the Church. Steve justifies this by saying the Church has been wrong in the past. I would be curious to know what he believes has been taught consistently through tradition and in scripture that we now deny? There have been issues that for a time were not settled in Church, but later were. Those who had contrary opinions prior to a subject being settled did no wrong. Those afterward who dissent do. Homosexual marriage in no way could be classed as development of doctrine. This would be a denial of one to be replace with another. The current view on the death penalty is an example of development of doctrine. We still don't see the death penalty in itself is not intrinsically evil but that If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means. This is clearly a deeper understanding of the death penalty and not a negation of it.
I just don't understand Progressive ecclesiology. If you believe that the Holy Spirit has been leading the Catholic Church and at the same time for 2000 years it has wrongly condemned homosexual acts and homosexual marriage. Maybe Progressives think the Holy Spirit should be fired for such mismanagement. This subject is not just some minor point, If homosexual activity was truly a good than the constant teaching of the Church would be a lie. If we can't trust the Church on a matter so important then how can we trust what it has said on anything? The divinity of Christ, the Trinity, our redemptive salvation could all be errors in this topsy-turvy theology of the Church. They mention that there are only five verses in the Bible that deal with homosexuality. Of course they don't mention the number of scripture examples of committed homosexual couples, which is exactly zero. How about the number of Church fathers who condoned homosexuality? Exactly zero again. So if we just totally ignore scripture, tradition and the magisterium then hey why not endorse homosexuality. What is the point of being Catholic if you can't know for sure if a teaching of the faith is true or not. This is closer to Gnosticism where only some people can attain to the secret knowledge of what the truth is.
In an article Steve links to from a typical suit-and-tie Jesuit says:
The experiences of homosexual persons also call for respectful consideration. These experiences include relationships of commitment and love, but also stigma and prejudice and even violence at the hands of persons and institutions.
What about the experiences and commitment of those who abandon there families and marry someone else. Should those adulterers also have our respectful consideration? After all there are currently in a loving relationship. How about the experience of those in incestuous relationships? Is everything fine as long as there is commitment?
I think the term Progressive is mistaken. More accurately the movement should be called Dismissives. Homosexuality a grave disorder. Dismiss it. Abortion morally wrong? Dismiss it. Contraception? Dismiss it. Submission to church teachings? Dismiss it. Of course if homosexual acts were moral then contraception immediately becomes moral to. To progress in the Church you must build upon the foundation of what already exists, not rip it away to install your own.
*Steve and some other of St. Blog's self-identifying Progressives are pro-life, yet the majority of those who use this label for themselves are not.
Known as 
You overstate the problem with suggesting that the Church could be wrong for 2,000 years about all forms of homosexual practice.
It's a relative question... the Church COULD be wrong about it, based on your own example of errors and missteps worked out through church history...
You don't have to ride the slippery slope argument and claim that all truth will head south if the traditional teaching against homosexual acts was to be ever overturned.
Just keep making the arguments why the traditional case is better than contemporary arguments that homosexual sex and love need to be celebrated and officially recognized..
It's simply not true - it can't be true - that if church teachingw as adjusted on this matter, that therefore all dogma is dogmeat...
come on.
New days call for new arguments, at times; new questions, etc., whether from forgetfulness of one culture or whims of human fraility. So keep making the arguments, but don't overstate the case and say things that you obviously can't know.
The "why" of why Catholic teaching tells us not to bugger one another is not because "if we say it's OK, then all truth will fall down," but for other reasons. Find them out and speak them, but quit crying "Wolf."
While you are at it, you might address the scandalous love for the buggery of boys that has been revealed to be something like systemic in the Catholic clergy and suggest ways to root it out... More priests, per capita, seem to be into such stuff, and at the least, dismissive or apathetic, about it, than truckers or cowboys or accountants. Why is that and what can be done to lower the numbers?
Here's a suggestion: Men tend to get weird apart from the intimate influence of women. From a morally pragmatic point of view, why not undertake deep and serious study of ways to increase the cohort of married priests?
I bet you $15 that any such increase would have a directly measurably positive influence on the over all moral character of the clergy.
This suggestion, of course, is based on the view that it's not written in the sky in divine writ for all time that priests must be celibate males. It's up for conciliar discussion, no?
Part of the problem in addressing the new challenges from pro-homosexual-activists is decades of bad preaching and bad teaching in the Church about sex in general.
Hi Jeff - In a couple places in your posting I think you have referred to me as 'Todd' instead of 'Steve'.
Hopefully I cleared-up my position in the comments on my blog. I accept the church's teaching on homosexual acts and homosexual marriage. But I also don't think it is harmful to reexamine it. The discussion would hopefully surface some more convincing arguments for the current teaching. But that's just my opinion.
While some have referred to me as a Progressive, the Progressives call me Moderate. I've never referred to myself as either, not that I can remember, anyway.
I think a quick view through the "Theology of the Body" by our wonderful Pope will help understand why the church teaches what she does about homosexuality. The sexual act should be a marital act, and a marital act needs to be total, fruitful, and faithful act of giving. Just like Christ gives himself to his bride.
Marriage is a symbol of Christ's relationship to the church, not the other way around.
As far as torture goes - I agree with you guys that it's never allowed, but there are cases (ticking nuclear bomb for example) where I personally wouldn't condemn someone else for having done such a thing (emotions run in the way of our better judgement sometimes). I know that if my wife and/or child was kidnaped, and torture was the only way to get my wife and/or child back, I wouldn't have the ability to stop myself. (I should hold myself back, but I know that myself better than that).
Steve is confusing doctrine with discipline. This is not unusual in a layman, but is quite inexcusable in a priest and theologian. The Church has often adjusted matters of discipline, but has never taught error as doctrine. Certainly it's good to examine these questions of doctrine, with the intention of renewing and increasing our understanding of the Church's teaching. Reexamining them with a view to deciding that a clear and consistent doctrine of the Church might be wrong is absolutely unacceptable. Again, I don't hold Steve to be at fault here a tithe as much as this precious Jesuit of his. He is responsible for proclaiming the Church's teaching clearly and without obfuscation. This responsibility he plainly abrogates by coyly asking, "Could this teaching also be in need of careful review?" It's a pity that the Magisterium of the Church doesn't suffice for Fr. Overburg, but in that case he ought to go into another line of work, and stop leading Catholics astray. I'd be thinking hard about millstones if I stood in his shoes.
Stevo wrote:
Less than 4% of all Catholic priests have been accused (accused, whether or not substantiated) of sexual abuse. I would hardly call that "systemic" (or systematic. The numbers from child abuse among Catholic priests are among the lowest when compared to the sexual abuse in, e.g., the Boy Scouts, public schools, and even Protestant Christian academies.Please check your statistics if you expect us to take you seriously.
Curt: "Hopefully I see everything through a Catholic lens."
Here's a resource for seeing *all* political issues from a Catholic perspective. It provides links to all the US Bishops' documents they recommend in their most recent "Faithful Citizenship" for our consideration during this election season. (Even if you think abortion trumps all other issues, that's not an excuse to be ignorant of them.) Check them out - there's some good stuff in there. And let me know if you find the full text of any of the documents I don't yet have links to.
Click my name, if that's not clear.
I participated in the comments section of Steve's blog on this article and made a comment on my blog as well. I also brought up the article you brought to my attention Jeff, The End of Marriage in Scandinavia which covers some of the very real consequences of homosexual marriage. Since no one on that blog wanted to take that one seriously, I'm going to be breaking it down into bite sized chunks on my blog this weekend and next week.
I disagree with Steve strongly on a number of issues, but in particular, I don't think it is helpful to keep rehashing doctrines that have been settled, particularly on morality over, and over and over again. I don't believe it brings clarity, I think it further breeds contempt and schizm.
I also mentioned that the Jesuit priest in that article did NOT mention the Theology of the Body and I wonder sincerely how anyone can say they want to "dialogue" on this issue without mentioning one of the major works in the past 25 years on the topic!