Did You See This in the News?

I tweeted the link, but I'd like to note a few points about it.

Vatican City, Jul 9, 2013 / 12:07 am (CNA/EWTN News).- On July 1 Pope Francis invited a group of 200 homeless individuals to dinner at the Vatican, where they were served in his name by Cardinal Giuseppe Bertello.

Cardinal Bertello, president of the Governatorate of the Vatican City State, spent the entire evening with the special guests, with whom he chatted at length and shared personal experiences, according to the July 3 edition of L'Osservatore Romano.

“I welcome you in the name of the Pope. As you know, this is your home, and he is pleased that you are here,” he told the group of homeless persons before dinner was served.

The dinner took place near the grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes in the Vatican. “Our Lady who stands before us looks upon us with serenity,” the cardinal said.

“It that same gaze that I wish upon each one of you and upon those who care for you with so much love.”

The dinner was organized by the Circle of Saint Peter, a papal charity. The evening was only one of a number of such events it holds throughout the year at its shelter in Rome “as a concrete sign of the Pope’s charity.”

After his welcoming address, Cardinal Bertello invited the guests to pray and said that their response “was a great success.”
 
The group was brought to the Vatican by bus and was received by 122 members of the Circle of St. Peter, led by its president, Leopoldo Torlonia.

The homeless were among the many that come to the organization’s shelter each day for meals, a place to sleep, and clean clothing.

The menu for the dinner was prepared by chefs from Naples, and members of the Circle acted as waiters, along with their wives and children.

The Vatican Gendarmes Band performed for the guests, providing them with entertainment as they dined.

At the end of the evening, Torlonia thanked the guests for “accepting the invitation from Pope Francis.”

Each was given a gift pack with pastries, fresh fruit, and a rosary.

(Emphasis added)

I admire the Pope's decision to invite the people to the Vatican itself. It's a fine gesture of hospitality, treating them as honored guests like any others who might be invited to a garden party. It underscores the human dignity of the homeless.

But I think the everyday work of the Circle of St. Peter is even more important. The daily work of this papal charity in caring for homeless people in Rome is something I was unaware of until I saw this story. Obviously the Circle of St. Peter wasn't just established by Pope Francis, even if he was the first to think of bringing some clients to the Vatican. Clearly it's been around for some time, and serving people where they are every day does even more good than loading them on buses to bring them to dinner at the Vatican, IMO; but it doesn't get publicity, even in the Catholic press.

It's easy for us to think that all that happens in the Vatican is the stuff that makes headlines, so I'm glad that this event lifts the curtain a bit and shows us that there are good things happening that we've never heard about.

Can We Say Disorder?

At the conclusion of our parish's "mission" last week, I had a little conversation with the presenter, on the subject of homosexuality. I suggested that the use of the term "disorder" to refer to homosexual orientation was inoffensive. He finds it objectionable.

The word is found in a document issued in 1986, which in turn refers to one from 1975.The point I want to discuss here is not whether the Vatican is right or wrong to characterize the homosexual orientation as an objective disorder. It is the argument some make that the word "disorder" itself is intrinsically offensive, and therefore the underlying position of the Vatican can be dismissed out of hand.

"3. Explicit treatment of the problem was given in this Congregation's "Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics" of December 29, 1975. That document stressed the duty of trying to understand the homosexual condition and noted that culpability for homosexual acts should only be judged with prudence. At the same time the Congregation took note of the distinction commonly drawn between the homosexual condition or tendency and individual homosexual actions. These were described as deprived of their essential and indispensable finality, as being "intrinsically disordered", and able in no case to be approved of (cf. n. 8, $4).


In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. 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.


Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not."


First, I'll point out that it can be very convenient not to have to prove that the Vatican is wrong about homosexuality: "They said a bad word, so we can ignore them." Even worse is when people get into a high dudgeon and pretend that by simply using this word the Church proves incontrovertibly that it "hates" homosexuals. Logically, of course, distaste for a word does not disprove the argument of the one who employs it.


Secondly, the word is not offensive anyway. People talk freely about SAD, ADD and ADHD, and nobody finds it offensive to speak of Seasonal Affective Disorder, Attention Deficit Disorder, or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.


My point, then, is that if someone wants to make an argument that a homosexual orientation is not a disorder, he can legitimately do so (although I'm not discussing it right here). All I'm saying is that the case against the Vatican position cannot be established simply by objecting to the use of the word "disorder."

National Catholic Reporter Obscures a Point

In the midst of an article on families of GLBT

http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2663
the National Catholic Reporter has the following two paragraphs.

The statement was written by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, now Benedict XVI. In harsh and uncompromising language, the document, “Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons,” written in English (not Latin) and aimed at the U.S. church, stated: “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; thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Therefore special concern and pastoral attention should be directed to those who have this condition, lest they be led to believe that the living out of this orientation in homosexual activity is a morally acceptable option. It is not.”

 The key is the phrase “objective disorder.” The Vatican had not used such language before, and it outraged many. The word, in effect, from the Vatican was that even if homosexuality is not freely chosen by each individual, it is nevertheless inherently and objectively wrong. It’s not merely that homosexual activity is wrong, but homosexuality itself -- the orientation of being emotionally, psychologically and physically attracted to members of the same sex -- that is objectively wrong.

I see no justification for bringing in the vague and emotion-laden word "wrong" with its overtones of moral disapproval to substitute for the much clearer and more precise "objective disorder," which clearly and explicitly is used to avoid giving even the slightest suggestion of blame to simply having a homosexual orientation. Did the writer not understand the document or was he consciously trying to inflame emotions against the Vatican by distorting what was said?

Obviously, there are many readers who disagree with the Vatican's position on the matter, but there is no need for the NCR to upset them further by taking away the clarity which the Vatican had tried to bring to its statement.