John Heard tells of his own need for sensitive, savy and truth-talking priests.
By John Heard
A man cannot write for himself. As Thomas Merton rather theatrically stated: “If you write only for yourself, you can read what you yourself have written and after ten minutes you will be so disgusted, you will wish that you were dead”.
I would not put it so turgidly; but it is always good to receive feedback, especially constructive email. It is even better to receive typewritten letters in the post (thank you Maureen, your letter was lovely). Such feedback provides human evidence that one’s writing is getting through, that a connection has been made.
The connection need not be of a standard sort, either. I get all kinds of feedback. Many people write to me of their sorrows, especially young same sex attracted men, and some describe great suffering indeed. Others want to tell me how a certain passage, or a particular line, helped to make them happy. It is always good to challenge wrong thinking, and it is marvellous to be challenged.
Some readers, not usually The Record readers, just want to fight it out – and others still want to add some thought of their own to whatever it is that one has published. That is good too.
When writing, as a non-theologian, on religious and sexual issues – there is no such thing as too much information.
By the same logic, feedback from priests and seminarians is best of all.
Indeed I have, by now, attracted a cadre of clerical correspondents – and they do not fail to keep me in line. If I write something a bit queer, then, I can count on a Religious brother, or a secular priest, to fire off an email. Did I really mean to say that?
On a few occasions, such feedback has radically altered my views. Christians have always gone in for fraternal correction, and these twinkling points of common feeling, and shared sentiment – these help me to be a better Catholic (and, I hope, a better writer).
Sometimes – although less often than usual – I can be of service to a priest or, rarer still, assist a bishop in some matter. An email I received from Illinois, recently, was of this kind.
Here was a priest, a relatively young priest, who wanted to know what he could do to be a more sympathetic and faithful pastor to the same-sex attracted young men in his flock.
He asked, indeed, “what would I – a priest trying to be good and holy – recommend to a young man who comes to me and expresses this concern? What would I say in that situation? What would I recommend?”
I wrote back that I crave (and I have good reason to believe that many other penitents crave) rigour and love. In the confessional, especially, same-sex attracted Catholics want a priest who is subtle, and honest, and true. I told him of the years of somewhat diplomatic advice I had received from theologically flabby, but otherwise lovable, Jesuit confessors. It was only a clear, stern, booming voice out of a confessional in St Peters that finally set me to thinking about what my faith demanded of me in terms of chastity, and other matters.
He had asked me, “So, what kind of suggestions do you think would be the most effective in maintaining the Church’s teaching and yet addressing [young people’s] need… [for] …immediate, practical, measurable results?” I told him to treat same-sex attracted young people, at first instance, as he would any other penitents. I suggested that he tell them, if the Spirit moved him, what the Church wants for all men (light, happiness, love) and how same sex attracted Catholics can get there (self discipline, prayer, disinterested friendship, and grace). I related how it has always bothered me that same sex attracted men are treated, in some instances, like spiritual lepers. Fornication is fornication, I wrote. Sodomy is sodomy. Masturbation is masturbation. Pornography, too, is evil no matter what sex act is depicted.
Of course, I wrote, homogenital acts are singled out for condemnation. They are always wrong, whereas fornication simpliciter is the misuse of an otherwise holy gift.
But the point I was trying to make is that I imagine that most men (SSA or otherwise) are tempted by sins of the flesh – so I might focus on the sins. On these, most priests have a good handle – and they know how to respond.
What are they? How many times?
If given the chance, most sinners would wallow. Shift the focus, I suggested, to what has been done, and what can be done. Do not make it sound like same-sex attracted individuals are somehow ordered for sin, simply by virtue of experiencing same-sex attraction.
There is, after all, no sin in being tempted and a man is not responsible for the colour of his passions – only for his responses to the same.
It is only after the engagement of will and reason, after a man chooses evil, that judgment justly comes down.
I do not know if this advice will make any difference, but at least the priest had the inclination to ask, and I certainly had the desire to cooperate with him, however limited and flawed my contributions. This sort of thing, this courteous way of talking, represents a development in the way solid (usually younger) priests engage with same-sex attraction. Their effort, their charity, has made me a better, more devoted Christian – and I do not doubt that they will help to (re) convert more same-sex attracted individuals to the faith.
– emaildreadnought@gmail.com