Our Lady of Monte Berico--pandemic

Our Lady of Monte Berico

Sr. M. Faustina Olson, F.H.I.

The Shrine of the Madonna of Monte Berico, Vicenza, Italy, is one of the most renowned pilgrimage sites of Marian devotion in Europe, greeting millions of visitors each year. The Shrine is an oasis of peace and tranquility with breathtaking views of greenery, mountains and waterways. Since 1428, the Madonna has lovingly stood on top of the hill offering solace to sojourners who are seeking her comfort.

Vicenza, named for the victory in 157 B.C., when the Romans drove out the Celtic tribes from the area, is situated in northeast Italy at the base of the Vicentine Alps, between Milan to the west and Venice to the east. The rich soil and abundant pastures make ideal conditions for the numerous horses, cattle and sheep that populate the land. Vicenza is located not far to the west of Padua (famous for St. Anthony of Padua) and was once under its governance for protection purposes.

Vicenza is also blessed to possess a relic of the Holy Thorn, a gift from King Louis IX of France in 1261 to the bishop of Vicenza, Blessed Bartolomeo de Braganza. It is located in the splendid Dominican church of Santa Corona, built in 1261 to honor the Holy Thorn. To the north are the Swiss Alps, bordering Switzerland and Austria, displaying some of the most resplendent views on earth. There are thriving forests with valuable lumber and abundant chestnut trees, whose fruit is known as the “flour of the poor”; many farms sell the chestnuts to augment their income. In the 1400s, the idyllic landscape of Vicenza, with its green rolling hills, was a natural location engendering farmland suitable for growing abundant vineyards of luscious grapes producing delectable wines. The plentiful vineyards, cultivated for generations by backbreaking toil, provided ample financial support for the hardworking.

Catholicism was deeply rooted in the culture of Italy during the Middle Ages, boasting of great saints, miracles, superb cathedrals, and fervent religious celebrations. In 1264, Pope Urban instituted the Feast of Corpus Christi for the Universal Church and celebrated it for the first time at Orvieto in 1264, a year after the renowned Eucharistic Miracle of 1263 in Bolsena, Italy. In 1389, the Corpus Domini procession in Vicenza became an official “city festival”; and there are reports that the College of Notaries participated in it with great pomp as early as 1390. The processional order was established when the Statutes were renewed in 1425.

Between the years of 1404 and 1428, according to the city documents, a virulent pestilence spread throughout the whole area around Vicenza, claiming many victims. The surviving inhabitants were seized with fear of the plague.

In March 1426, in spite of the dreaded plague, Vincenza Pasini trudged a half-mile up the hill of Monte Berico, as was her routine, to bring lunch to her husband who was tending his vineyard. Vincenza was a faith-filled, seventy-year-old woman who was known for her charity and for her devotion to Our Lady. As she climbed the hill, a beautiful Lady appeared to her and said, “I am the Virgin Mary, the Mother of Christ who died on the Cross for the salvation of men. I beg you to go and say in my name to the people of Vicenza that they must build in this place a church in my honor if they want to recover their health.  Otherwise, the plague will not cease. As proof of what I say, let them dig here, and from the rock, living water will spring.”^[1]

Vincenza was so overcome by the beauty of the Lady that she fell prostrate on the ground. She was filled with joy but was concerned that no one would believe her and that she might have to suffer on account of the vision. The Virgin Mary replied, “You will insist so that my people do my will, otherwise they will never be rid of the plague; and, until they obey, they will see My Son angry with them. As proof of what I say, let them dig here, and from the rock, living water will spring.  As soon as the building begins, money will not lack.”^[2] Our Lady then took a small stick and gracefully traced the Sign of the Cross on the ground, sketched the lines of the Church to be erected, and planted the stick in the ground where the high altar of the Shrine is located today. She then said, “All those who visit this church with devotion on My feast days and on every first Sunday of the month, will be given an abundance of grace and the Mercy of God and the blessing of my motherly hands.”^[3]

Vincenza related the vision to the bishop, to priests and to the people, but they did not believe her, and the plague continued to swallow its victims. Unable to convince them, she continued her life as before with regular Mass attendance and works of charity toward the poor. On special feast days, she would ascend the hill to pray in the place where the Madonna had spoken to her. Two years later, on August 1, 1428, Our Lady appeared to her again. She repeated the warning and reminded her that the plague would continue until they heeded her previous advice.

Again, Vincenza went to the authorities and to the people, who were now anxious about the effects of the plague that raged on. Finally, the Bishop recognized the apparitions; and this time, the citizens were so afraid that they quickly heeded the advice. Within twenty-four hours, the city workers and residents, led by the Bishop, climbed Monte Berico, and they began to plan the Gothic church with a monastery for religious to greet the pilgrims. Construction began three weeks later on August 25, 1428; remarkably, it was completed within three months. While they were constructing the building, they struck a rock; “a marvelous and incredible source of water flowed… to the point of flooding the area like an abundant river coming noisily down the mount.”^[4]

It was reported that, as soon as the church was finished, the plague abated and finally vanished. These events were documented in 1430 by the notaries public; they can be read in the city library Biblioteca Civica Bertoliana. The Vicenzians were grateful to be rid of the plague, and they were convinced of the truth of the apparition. Devotion to Our Lady of Monte Berico increased daily. Obedience to the commands of the Virgin resulted in the miraculous eradication of that particular pestilence, and it has never returned to the city.

The Shrine of Monte Berico is situated at the top of a hill that is part of the vast Berici Hills. Today, the Shrine is a stunning monumental basilica renowned for its grandiose architecture and beautiful art. The church is adorned with awe-inspiring statues (the majority of which are carved in stone originating from the Berici Hills and surrounding towns) and paintings such as: Feast of St. Gregory the Great, by Paolo Veronese; La Pietà, a 1505 painting by Bartolomeo Montagna; La Cena, by Paolo Veronese, 1572; the Virgin among the Four Evangelists and the Baptism of Christ, by Alexander Maganza; and magnificent statues and bas-reliefs that were crafted at the end of the seventeenth century by Orazio Marinali.

The Shrine is the result of two constructions of different styles: gothic (the first church) and baroque. Above the arch that divides the two churches, one can admire the great painting by Giulio Carpioni of 1651, portraying the city of Vicenza at the feet of the Virgin. Inside the shrine, situated on the very place where Our Lady appeared to Vincenza, stands a beautiful 3½ foot gold colored statue of Our Lady of Monte Berico, (also known as the Mother of Mercy or the Madonna of the Mantle) fashioned in 1430 by Nicolò da Venezia from the soft stone of the Berici Hills. The shrine’s archives describe the statue as “an imperious image in marble, painted with skill in various and precious colors.” Curls frame the Virgin’s smiling face as her extended arms enfold some of her suppliant children of all classes under her blue mantle, lined with red and hemmed in gold. Her veil is gold colored and falls just below her shoulders. The inscription on the pedestal of the statue reads, “Mostrati Madre” (Show yourself a Mother). A beautiful crown, originally placed there on August 25, 1900, by Cardinal Sarto (the future Pope Pius X), adorns the statue’s head, and a gold necklace is placed over her shoulders.

The steep half-mile hike up the hill is boasts of a two-sectioned archway, called the Path of the Porticos. Designed and Completed in 1746 by architect Fracesco Muttoni, the passageway is comprised of 150 arches in honor of the 150 Hail Mary’s of the Rosary, and at every ten arches, the wall bears a painting of one of the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary. The other way to the Shrine is by taking the Arco delle Scalette, a picturesque stairway of 192 steps. This was the only way up to the Shrine before the Path of the Porticos was built.

On September 23, 1924, a plaza situated on the northern side in front of the Shrine, called Piazzale della Vittoria, was dedicated. It boasts of full panoramic views of the city of Vicenza and has become a magnet for pilgrims, hikers and sightseers from all areas. The beauty of the landscape exudes peace and consolation, both soothing and comforting visitors. Engravings on the walls of the Plaza indicate the particular views facing that specific direction, such as: Monte Grappa, the foothills of the Alps (Dolomites), the Lessini Hills, the Venetian Lagoon, Mount Pasubio, the Piave River, and many other sites in the Veneto.

Over the centuries, many miracles have been attributed to Our Lady of Monte Berico, and they continue to this day. Some of these have been attested to by more than 150 votive offerings: “Done both on wood and canvas, they recount, in a simple, somewhat naive style, a striking series of disastrous falls from horses, from windows, into a lake or a river. Not to mention violent attacks, accidents, congenital handicaps and dangerous illnesses. Overall a tide of mishaps, all successfully dealt with by the maternal intervention of the Virgin Mary.”^[5]

Another great miracle occurred in February 1917, during the First World War, when Vicenza found itself behind enemy lines—only six miles from a raging conflict. “The residents made a solemn vow to the Madonna of Monte Berico, promising that, ‘if our lands are kept safe, we vow to keep the day of your birth perpetually holy as a sacred feast day.’ Since then, because the Madonna answered the prayer of the people of Vicenza and kept the war from reaching and destroying the city, September 8, Our Lady’s birthday, is a local holiday.”^[6]

The busy Shrine of Our Lady of Berico has now become one of largest shrines dedicated to Mary in Europe. Every year millions of pilgrims arrive at the Basilica of Monte Berico. The Vicenzians look up to the Shrine on the hill, acknowledging the heavenly protection of the Virgin Mary under her watchful gaze. “On the first Sunday of the month,” a member of the Servants of Mary (Servites) stated, “we have an average of twenty-two thousand confessions. Sometimes we stay until ten o’clock p.m. in the confessional.” The Servites have watched over this beautiful site with its magnificent panorama since 1435.^[7]

In 1978, Pope Paul VI honored Our Lady under the title of the Madonna of Monte Berico by declaring her to be the principal patron of the city and diocese of Vicenza. He prayed that devotion to the Virgin Mary would flourish even more. On the one hundredth anniversary of the crowning of the statue, August 22, 2000, Pope John Paul II imparted a special apostolic blessing to the church and all the people, begging Our Lady of Monte Berico’s intercession.

In the message recalling the centennial crowning, Pope St. John Paul II prayed: “May Mary, Mother of the Lord, who from this shrine became the model and support of the countless priests, religious and lay people, who went to the most remote corners of the earth to proclaim and bear witness to revealed Truth, continue to raise up generous workers of truth and charity. May she inspire in all hearts openness to the divine call. May she give new missionary zeal to the young people of the Churches of the Triveneto…  Mary, Mother of Mercy, support us on our way to the heavenly homeland!”

Many hearts have turned to the Virgin Mary at this Shrine where she appeared almost six hundred years ago to a faithful seventy-year-old woman. She lovingly welcomes all visitors with her maternal guidance and keeps her promise to shower graces upon her children. May the prayer of John Paul II to the Madonna of Berico echo in our souls:

O Mary, turn your merciful gaze toward us.

Show thyself a mother!

Show thyself the mother of those who suffer and long for justice and peace.

Show thyself the mother of every man who struggles for the life that does not die.

Mother of humanity redeemed  by the blood of Christ:

Mother of perfect love, of hope and peace,

Holy Mother of the Redeemer.

Show thyself our mother, the mother of unity and hope,

While with the whole Church we cry out to thee again:

“Mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope.”^[8]

https://missiomagazine.com/our-lady-of-monte-berico/

^[1]     Be Not Afraid to Follow the Footprints from Heaven, John Carpenter, Page Pub. Co., 2016.

^[2]     Ibid.

^[3]     http://www.divinemysteries.info/madonna-of-mount-berico-vicenza-italy-1426-1428/.

^[4]     http://www.miraclehunter.com/marian_apparitions/approved_apparitions/monteberico/index.html.

^[5]     http://www.30giorni.it/articoli_id_9795_l3.htm.

^[6]     Ibid.

^[7]     Ibid.

^[8]     A Life in Prayer: The Private Prayers of Pope John Paul II, Simon and Schuster, April 19, 2005.

The seductions of Socialism

Materialism, fantasy and false worship were the temptations Satan thrust at Christ, and he is tempting our nation the same way. 

These seductions are a formula for Socialism, which Winston Churchill in 1948 defined as "The philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy."

A poorly educated generation succumbs to adolescent idealism, bereft of history, unaware that a cult of the state has been a consistent failure, costing countless millions of lives in modern times. State worship was resisted by the earliest Christians, who refused to offer incense to Caesar.  Socialism is simply Communism not yet in power, and its smiling face in the guise of "Democratic Socialism" quickly scowls once it has control.  As the economist Ludwig von Mises showed in various ways, the essence of Socialism is coercion and manipulation.  Pope John XXIII, quoting Pope Pius XI, taught in 1961: "No Catholic could subscribe even to moderate Socialism."

Socialism in the guise of benevolence exploits the naïve.  As a corollary, Yeats said: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."  Lack of conviction moved appeasers to sign the Munich Agreement, and in present times it has ceded the Church's integrity to the Chinese government.  Naïve people were scandalized by the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, but Stalin and Hitler were simply Socialists in different uniforms.  Just as the National Socialist manifesto of 1920 tried to replace the Church with a pastiche of "Positive Christianity," which was Christianity without Christ, so has the Chinese government ordered that images of Christ be replaced with images of Party leader Xi Jinping.

In 1931, Pope Pius XI denounced the exaltation of the state as "Idolatry."  He insisted that "Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist."  From a conviction born of suffering under National Socialism and Soviet Socialism, Pope John Paul II maintained that "the fundamental error of Socialism is anthropological . . . [because it] considers the individual person simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism… ."

As the Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world, Catholics should note what a present candidate for his party's presidential nomination, who calls himself a Democratic Socialist, said years ago: "I don't believe in charities . . .government, rather than charity organizations, should take over responsibility for social programs."  But Pope Benedict VI has said: "We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces . . ."

The prophet Samuel warned the Israelites who wanted a king in charge of everything: "He will take the tenth of your flocks, and you shall be his slaves" (1 Samuel 8:17).  That voice is louder now.

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/politics-and-the-church/the-seductions-of-socialism.html

Resenting Chastity

The following is based on Dr. Sri's book, Men, Women and the Mystery of Love 

That's a point that John Paul II then Karol Wojtyla makes when beginning his teaching on chastity in his book Love and Responsibility.

Why is virtue resented by many people today? First, living the virtuous life is not easy. It requires a lot of effort, practice, and self-denial. We are constantly battling against our fallen, selfish human nature. This side of the Garden of Eden, it is a lot easier to give in to our emotions and desires than it is to control them. For example, it is easier to indulge our appetite than it is to eat with moderation. It is easier to lose our temper when things don't go our way than it is to moderate our anger. It is easier to give in to discouragement and complaining than it is to joyfully endure our trials with courage.

The virtues remind us of the higher moral standard that we are called to follow. This reminder should inspire us to give more of ourselves in the pursuit of virtue and live more like Christ, rather than living life enslaved by our passions.

However, not everyone wants to be reminded of this. For souls not wanting to give up certain pleasures or comforts souls not wanting to do the work and make the sacrifices that are necessary to grow in virtue any discussion of the virtues can be like a mirror showing them their own moral laziness.

Virtue Subverted

This is why some people resent the virtues. Instead of being inspired to live a better life, they destroy the moral standard of the virtues and drag it down to their level. In other words, they minimize the significance of the virtues in order to spare themselves the effort and excuse their own moral failures.

For example, imagine several women working in an office who gossip and talk about other people behind their backs. One of their Christian colleagues, however, does not use foul language and does not participate in their gossip. Instead of being inspired by her example, her co-workers make fun of her. They ridicule her as being a "holy roller" who is "too good for the rest us." By not going along with what everyone else is doing, she stands as a reminder of their own immoral behavior. Thus her virtue is not praised. It is resented.

Wojtyla says that many people devalue the virtues in order to excuse themselves from having to live by a higher standard. Since they don't want to make the effort to change, they treat the virtues lightheartedly or even openly attack them in order to justify their own lack of moral character. "Resentment . . . not only distorts the features of the good but devalues that which rightly deserves respect so that man need not struggle to raise himself to the level of the true good, but can 'light-heartedly' recognize as good only what suits him, what is convenient and comfortable to him" (p. 144).

Resenting Chastity

The virtue that is probably resented the most today is chastity. Chastity is no longer seen as something good, something noble, something we should all pursue. Just the opposite: Chastity is now often portrayed as something evil something harmful for human persons!

Some argue that chastity is harmful to the psychological well-being of young men and women. Sexual desire is natural, it is said. Therefore, it is unnatural to restrict it in any way.

Others say chastity is an enemy of love. If two people love each other, shouldn't they be able to express their love through sexual intercourse? Chastity might have a role to play in other areas of life, but when two mutually consenting adults are in love, the restrictions of chastity are a tremendous hindrance to the couple who are expressing their love through sex.

These and many other arguments against chastity reflect our culture's resentment of this virtue. We witness this resentment of chastity in many college classrooms, in many "sex ed" programs, and especially in the media. When a Hollywood film or prime time sitcom portrays romantic relationships, how often is chastity held up as a moral ideal? How often is chastity presented as something that makes us happy, as something the heroes intentionally make a priority in their lives?

Why This Resentment?

Anyone can have feelings and desire for another person. But not everyone has the virtue and commitment to make self-giving love possible.

Wojtyla says the main reason modern man views chastity as an obstacle to love is that we associate love primarily with the emotions or the sexual pleasure we receive from the person of the other sex. In other words, we tend to think of love only in its subjective aspect. If we are going to restore the virtue of chastity in our world, "we must first of all eliminate the enormous accretion of subjectivity in our conception of love and of the happiness which it can bring to man and woman" (p. 144).

To understand this point better, let's briefly recall the two sides of love, which we considered in a previous reflection.[1] For Wojtyla, the subjective aspect of love is simply a "psychological experience" something happening inside of me. When men and women encounter each other, they may spontaneously find themselves physically attracted to each other's "good looks" (he calls this attraction sensuality). And they may also find themselves emotionally attracted to each other's masculine or feminine personality (he calls this sentimentality). These sensual desires and emotional responses are not bad. In fact, they can serve as the "raw material" from which authentic love might develop. However, these responses do not represent love itself. At this level, they remain attractions to the other person's body or their masculinity or femininity, not love for the other person himself or herself.

The objective aspect of love is much more than a psychological experience happening inside of me. It is "an interpersonal fact." It considers what is really happening in the relationship, not just the good feelings I experience when I'm with the other person. The objective aspect of love involves a mutual commitment of the will to what is best for the other person and the virtue to be able to help the other person pursue what is best for them. Even more, love in this fullest sense involves self-giving a surrendering of one's will, a decision to limit one's autonomy in order to serve the other more freely.

Therefore, the real questions in love are not the subjective ones: "Do I have strong feelings and desire for my beloved? Does he or she have strong feelings and sensual desire for me?" Anyone can have feelings and desire for another person. But not everyone has the virtue and commitment to make self-giving love possible.

Sexual Values

Now back to the problem of chastity. Wojtyla points out that the subjective aspect of love develops more rapidly and is felt more intensely than the objective aspect. On the objective level, it takes a lot of time and effort to cultivate a virtuous friendship. Relationships centered on total self-giving love and on a profound sense of responsibility for the other as a gift don't just happen spontaneously.

However, with the subjective aspect of love, it doesn't take much time and effort at all to experience sensual desire or emotional longing for a person of the opposite sex. Such reactions can happen in an instant. Furthermore, these sensual and emotional responses can be so powerful that they dominate how we view the other person. In our fallen human nature, we can tend to see persons of the opposite sex primarily through the prism of their sexual values the values that give us emotional and sexual pleasure. As a result, we obscure our perception of them as persons, and view them more as opportunities for our own enjoyment (cf. p. 159).

Wojtyla points out that our encounters with the opposite sex are often mixed with this kind of emotional or sensual egoism with a desire to use the person for our own emotional pleasure or sexual satisfaction. "The truth of original sin explains a very basic and very widespread evil that a human being encountering a person of the other sex does not simply and spontaneously experience 'love' but a feeling muddied by the longing to enjoy" (p. 161, emphasis added).

Our Tendency to Use the Opposite Sex

Did you catch that? Wojtyla is saying that when we encounter someone of the opposite sex (a stranger, a friend, a coworker, a boyfriend/girlfriend, a spouse, or even another person's spouse), we should not expect a purely selfless attitude of Christian kindness to spontaneously spring from our hearts. Because we are fallen, our many complex attractions are often mixed with a selfish attitude of wanting to be with the other person not for the sake of any commitment to his or her well-being, but for the rush of good feelings or sensual pleasure we may receive from being with the other person. In other words, when boy meets girl, they do not automatically fall into authentic, self-giving, committed love for each other. Instead, while feeling attracted to each other, they are tempted to see each other as objects to satisfy their own emotional needs or sexual desires.

Again, these reactions to sexual values are certainly not bad in themselves. However, if we're not careful, this raw material can be used up as an outlet for our own emotional or sensual enjoyment. And as long as this happens, selfless love for the other person will never develop. That is why we need a virtue that helps us integrate our sensual and sentimental attractions with authentic love for the other as a person. Wojtyla continues, "Since sensations and actions springing from sexual reactions and the emotions connected with them tend to deprive love of its crystal clarity a special virtue is necessary to protect its true character and objective profile. This special virtue is chastity" (p. 146).

Chastity: The Guardian of Love

Now we can see why chastity is so necessary for love. Far from something that hinders our love, chastity is what makes love possible. It protects love from falling into selfish, utilitarian attitudes and enables us to love selflessly irrespective of the powerful emotions or sensual delight we may receive from our beloved.

If we are to truly love a person of the opposite sex, we must be able to see much more than the person's sexual value. We must see their full value as a person and respond to them in selfless love. Wojtyla says that chastity allows us to do just that. "The essence of chastity consists in quickness to affirm the value of the person in every situation and in raising to the personal level all reactions to the value of 'the body and sex'" (p. 171).

However, the man without chastity sits in a very sad situation: He is not free to love. He may have some good intentions and a sincere desire to care for his beloved, but without chastity, his love will never flourish, for it will not be pure. It will be mixed with a tendency to view his beloved primarily in terms of her sexual values, which make his heart delight in emotional enjoyment or make his body stir in sensual desire. Wojtyla explains that the man without chastity cannot selflessly love his beloved for who she is as a person, because his heart is so preoccupied with the emotional and sensual pleasure he receives from her (p. 164).

But chastity enables a man to see clearly not just his beloved's sexual values, but even more, her value as a person. Freed from utilitarian attitudes, the chaste man is thus free to love. "Only the chaste man and the chaste woman are capable of true love. For chastity frees their association, including marital intercourse, from that tendency to use a person . . . and by so freeing it introduces into their life together and their sexual relationship a special disposition to 'loving kindness.'" (p. 171).

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/marriage/resenting-chastity.html

1. "The Law of the Gift," Lay Witness, September/October '05.

Out of the Closet and into Chastity

Notice to Reader: "The Boards of both CERC Canada and CERC USA are aware that the topic of homosexuality is a controversial one that deeply affects the personal lives of many North Americans. Both Boards strongly reiterate the Catechism's teaching that people who self-identify as gays and lesbians must be treated with 'respect, compassion, and sensitivity' (CCC #2358). The Boards also support the Church's right to speak to aspects of this issue in accordance with her own self-understanding. Articles in this section have been chosen to cast light on how the teachings of the Church intersect with the various social, moral, and legal developments in secular society. CERC will not publish articles which, in the opinion of the editor, expose gays and lesbians to hatred or intolerance."

Outside of the struggles over abortion and euthanasia, there may be no greater battle in the Church today than the one raging over homosexuality. At a time when the Church faces a righteous tempest about the abuse of altar boys at the hands of priests, when gay rights groups target the Mass for sacrilegious demonstrations, and when disobedient clergy preside at same-sex "weddings", it is no wonder traditional Catholics approach the topic carrying little but confusion, frustration, and anger. Most Catholics in the pews do not accept homosexuality, do not want to understand it, and wish, mostly, that the topic would go away -- or at least back into the closet "where it belongs." Others, a minority, in particular associated with the gay caucus Dignity, are only too happy to have the topic discussed -- so long as that discussion leads in the direction of the Church changing its doctrine on homosexual acts.

As both a former homosexual activist and current faithful Catholic committed to chastity, I urge instead that all Catholics, laity and clergy, join together to preach the fullness of the Church's teaching on this matter. I implore this because I believe it to be a teaching filled with dignity, truth and self-respect for all people, one which, if preached in integrity and steadfastness, will bring many to a full life with Jesus Christ.

In making this case I will begin by telling a bit of my own history. I do so not to make public that which should be private, but because so much of the public discussion on this issue is either biased or aloof from the actual lives of homosexual people.¹ I believe that offering the witness of my journey from gay activism to chastity is necessary to help fill what has become a vacuum in the conversation.

My pilgrimage from being a homosexual-rights activist to living life as a chaste Catholic began in earnest when I read the writings of a modern-day Protestant martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Before reading Bonhoeffer my short Christian life had been marked primarily by my translating sidewalk gay-rights activism into similar activism in the Anglican pew.

Homosexual orientation and the life I had built around it were so central to my primary identity that I could not understand how anyone could object to what I was doing. Disapproval, doubts, objections of all kinds could only be the result of either confusion about what Scripture says about homosexuality or outright bigotry.

After all, I was living proof that homosexual people could live a sexually active life which was both spiritually and temporally satisfying. I had a lover of five years, a condominium in a major urban area, a satisfying job, and a church life as an Episcopalian which, while not perfect, was still a treasure. What more could I want? Yet, in prayer and in quiet times of reflection, I could not avoid noticing some thistles which sneaked into my "gaily" -modeled life.

As committed an activist as I was, I had to admit the shallowness and sheer improbability of many gay-friendly theologians and scholars when it came to Scripture and homosexual acts. Beyond the solid observation that Scripture does not discuss homosexual orientation per se,² authors as diverse as John McNeill (formerly S.J.), Sylvia Pennington, John Boswell, and Virginia Molenkott went wandering into scriptural speculations which, while creative, really asked their audience to suspend belief about the clear meaning of the original text.

When discussing what the apostle Paul "really" meant when he condemned homosexual acts in Romans 1:18-23 and 1 Corinthians 6:8-11, these authors alleged that Paul must have been condemning something other than the homosexual relationship of today since he could not have known anyone of confessed homosexual orientation. An argument for blessing homosexual acts was based on this reasoning, and it asked me to conclude that, had Paul known of the participants' orientation, he would have approved of the acts, even though nothing in his other letters indicated this would be so.

Likewise, the condemnations against homosexual acts in Leviticus were dismissed with the suggestion that the acts condemned there had more to do with ritual prostitution than with "loving" homosexuality. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed (Gen. 19:1-25), these authors allege, not because of homosexual offense, but because the people of the towns were greedy, corrupt, and inhospitable to strangers.

Each of these, while claiming fidelity to traditional scriptural exegesis, took interpretation in a radically new direction and ignored the strong possibility that greed, corruption, and inhospitality might have gone hand-in-hand with homosexual offense. Was it reasonable to assume that homosexual acts had nothing to do with the cities being destroyed, in view of the large part they played in the drama of Lot's departure?

So, there were little cracks in the theoretical foundation upon which I had built my life. There were also problems with how I saw "gay theology" lived out around me. Most gay Christians I knew differed little in their lives from gay pagans, agnostics, and atheists. Gay Christian worship services, while sometimes worshipful, were also often as sexually charged and "cruisy"³ as most bars I visited. Early on I decided to try to make a nearby non-gay Episcopal parish my spiritual home, and my experience there, contrasting sharply with what I saw of gay "worship", forced me to admit that many of my arguments in favor of gay Christianity were modeled more on a theoretical ideal than on practical experience.

A final source of pre-Bonhoeffer doubt came in the relationships I formed with non-gay, theologically orthodox Christians. Here were people who, I had been told, should have hated the very ground I walked upon and despised me for my sexual orientation. After all, hadn't much of the gay flight to the cities been to get away from traditional Christians? Yet the people I encountered loved me, even while they strenuously disagreed with the choices I was making in my life. Agreement, I came to realize, might be nice, but it was not a prerequisite for friendship and real affection. The ground was ripe for the Holy Spirit to work a revolution, and that revolution began in a dramatic way, with Dietrich Bonhoeffer.

I remember the day clearly. It was early in the spring and raining. My then-lover and I had spent much of the miserable day in a shopping mall and had split up to pursue our own bargains, his in clothes and mine in books. I was in a discount bookstore, poring over a disorganized pile of titles, when I saw it, The Cost of Discipleship by Dietrich Bonhoeffer. I opened it, and I can still remember its first sentence as though I were reading it right now: "Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church. We are fighting today for costly grace."⁴

I was hooked. It was as though those lines had been written just for me at just that time. Scooping together the loose change in my pockets, I bought the book, brought it home, and devoured it. Here, from this man martyred on Adolf Hitler's order, I heard a message which both commanded and terrified me. Would I, could I, give my life for Christ? Where had I compromised? Did being a Christian really mean going along with what my world was telling me, or did being a Christian mean being different, being wholly Christ's?

Swiftly I began reading everything about Bonhoeffer that I could get my hands on. With Bonhoeffer came other committed Christian authors, some of them Catholic. Augustine's Confessions convicted me of my own spiritual timidity and encouraged me that God never gives up on us. Teresa of Avila's Interior Castleawed me with the depth of communion possible in prayer, and Mother Teresa's life and writing showed me the potential fruit of such a prayerful life.

These took residence on my shelf next to books by Richard Foster, who writes powerfully from the Quaker tradition. His Celebration of Discipline and The Challenge of the Disciplined Life made me want to re-examine the role Christianity played in my all-too-modern life, specifically in the area of my identity and sexuality. Gradually I began to understand that my sexuality was not something I owned, but something God owned in me, and that the clear witness of Scripture was to a dual purpose for sexuality. Sex, in God's intention, is meant to do two things: provide for the procreation of children and build up husbands and wives in the love, respect, and life of each other. How did this square with the kind of sex with which I was most familiar, particularly in light of its inevitably transient nature? After all, homosexual sex is completely and unalterably divorced from the responsibility of procreation. Is this really how God intended we should use our sexuality?

After many months of indecision, I could remain dishonest no longer. The life I had been living for so long was a life of cheap grace and I knew it. In the light of Scripture, Tradition, and reflection I could only conclude that God demanded of me the same thing he demands of all unmarried Christians: a chaste life. So it was that I stepped out in faith from almost everything I had thought most important and dear to me. If Christ wanted chastity, I would be chaste. Everything else and everyone else I placed in his hand.

From there my journey to the Catholic faith was swift, drawn along as I was by the three realities which make the Catholic Church so attractive to homosexuals who seek to live in sexual purity and fidelity.

First, the Catholic Church is the only Christian institution that not only preaches the truth of chastity for homosexual people but offers practical, tangible help for achieving it.

Second, the Catholic Church is the only major Christian institution to recognize that we really do not know what causes homosexuality. The Church will not demand heterosexual conversion as a condition of fellowship, nor will it decide, in advance, that homosexual people are not capable of being responsible for their own decisions and actions. This position contains, as its corollary, the dramatically counter-cultural notion that homosexual people have as much human dignity as anyone else and deserve not to be patronized -- something which my more liberally-minded Episcopal Church did (and does still) with depressing regularity.

Finally, the Catholic Church possesses the truth, not simply in this dogma but in all its dogmas. Seeking assistance to live a chaste life may have been the road I traveled to Rome, but once it was in my view I could see so much more. The Catholic Church, I came to understand, was meant in itself to be a means of grace in my desire to lead a life closer to God. In its sacraments, particularly reconciliation and the Eucharist, it offered an enormously important avenue for drawing nearer to Jesus, and it would offer those to me no matter my sexual orientation.

Yes, I had doubts. No one in my family had ever been Catholic. Many of them were and remain anti-Catholic. Yet the truth which had drawn me this far would not let me tarry longer than absolutely necessary, and I entered the Catholic Church at Easter 1993.

How has it been? Rough but wonderful. Nothing could have prepared me for the strength I would draw from a Catholic relationship with Christ and no one could have prepared me for how difficult it would be to lose friends and strain family relationships because of this choice. Anyone who thinks there is a gap between Catholicism and evangelism either is not a Catholic or is not living a Catholic life in an open way. Simply to confess a belief in a Catholic view of Christ is to take a counter-cultural position which demands apologetics and explanation. Faithful Catholics who are homosexual do it every day and find in both the exterior witness and interior dialogue a remarkable path to deeper faith.

Occasionally I am asked what I expect of the future, and I sometimes run out of time trying to answer. The truth of the Catholic Church's doctrine on the subject of homosexuality and homosexual acts is so profound and such a real expression of love that it can easily dominate conversation. Yet it is a teaching which is frequently ignored among traditional Catholics and derided by heterodox Church members. This is a shame and must be corrected, for the sake of all those hundreds of thousands who seek a similar message and might enter the Church if they heard it. In my opinion clergy and laity, have an obligation to state the truth of Christ wherever we are and to whomever would hear it. We cannot allow a person's orientation to be an issue if we are to be faithful to the One who has called us. Here then is what I would hope Catholics would do in the future:

First, I hope all Catholics will learn what the Church teaches about homosexuality. Homosexuality, in the Catholic view, is a tendency toward disordered sexual acts, but it is not a sin in and of itself. In this it can be said to be no more sinful than an inclination to heterosexual fornication or adultery. The vast majority of homosexuals cannot be said to choose to have the desires they have, and many, including myself, find living with them, in the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a "trial" (CCC 2358).

Second, I hope traditional Catholics will get over being shocked and disapproving that homosexual people exist in our world and culture. This is an attitude that goes beyond simply and properly disapproving of homosexual acts; it comes perilously close to condemning homosexual people as human beings.

I think we must all agree that this is something Jesus Christ does not and would not do and, in fact, warns us away from doing (Matt. 7:1-5, Luke 6:36-37). This disposition, I believe, has done much to swell the ranks of homosexual Catholics whose behavior seems bent on hell -- not simply out of the blindness of sin, but also because no one has ever offered them the truth in love. Love without truth can degenerate into selfish violence, but truth without love is brutal.

Third, as hard as it might be, faithful Catholics must learn to recognize that not all homosexuals are child molesters. The current scandals of priests abusing altar boys has lent a level of popularity to this prejudice, but making the term "pederast" interchangeable with "homosexual" is not only uncharitable, but borders on slander.

Fourth, I hope Catholic clergy will be more encouraging to homosexual people about their dignity as human beings, created in the image of God, and their vocation to chastity, which they share by virtue of that dignity. More homilies ought to take this admonition from the Catechism to heart: "Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession, and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead" (CCC 357).

This essential dignity is insulted when traditional Catholics condemn homosexual people out of hand and when heterodox Catholics patronize us by trying to make believe that homosexual activity -- like other genital activity outside of marriage is not sinful and damaging to our ultimate relationship with God. Ironically enough, both groups are guilty of much the same attitude: defining homosexual people not by the virtue to which they are capable with God's grace, but by activity which that grace can empower them to resist. 

Fifth, I hope more bishops, clergy, religious, and lay people come to acknowledge and support the powerful ministry of Fr. John Harvey, O.S.F.S., and his group, Courage.⁵ Starting from a small seed of concern, Fr. Harvey's organization has grown over the years to become a vital and supportive presence to thousands of homosexual people who are either leaving an actively gay life or who struggle privately against an inclination to homosexual sin.

Courage chapters around the country provide an important ministry of compassion because it is often in such places that the bare bones of Church dogma can be fleshed out in chaste friendship. It is not good for a man to be alone, Scripture teaches, and groups such as Courage can provide a needed antidote to the loneliness or emotional isolation which can inflict many who seek to live a chaste life. The Church recognizes this necessity: 'Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection" (CCC 2359).

Given that this teaching is the authoritative doctrine of the Church, how is it that so few of the dioceses in the United States have a Courage chapter? It is a scandal that some dioceses have not even explored beginning a Courage chapter -- or have rejected one outright. To deny homosexual Catholics a haven at the foot of the cross is a sin against charity and provides evidence of disturbing meanness of spirit.

Sixth, if there is one overarching teaching that the Church should emphasize in the future, not only for homosexual Catholics, but for all Christendom, it would be the role Christ our Redeemer plays in the formation of our primary identity.

Identity is like a pair of glasses. It is through our understanding of self that we interpret and view God, people, and our world. This is why Paul, in writing to the Church in Corinth for the second time, explained, "From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once knew Christ from a human point of view, we know him no longer in that way" (2 Cor. 5:16).

What was it about his readers that Paul thought would change their way of looking at themselves and each other? It was living in the light of faith in Christ Jesus. Consider this definition of "gayness," which I have developed after over a decade of reflection on the question: Being gay means giving oneself over to one's sexual orientation to the point where it becomes a foundation and center of one's identity.

One can be a person with a homosexual orientation, but one cannot be "gay" in the modern context and be a person with just a homosexual orientation. In the act of self-identification, "coming out," which is so important to the gay community, one sacrifices individual personhood for identity in the group. Homosexual orientation moves from being a peripheral aspect of one's personality to being a defining aspect.

If you are a Christian who has made this choice, I believe there is reason to examine your heart for evidence of idolatry. I have observed that once a person has made a decision that he is not merely homosexually oriented, but is gay, then orientation tends to be a dominant aspect of his identity and everything else -- society, faith, institutions, and even God -- will be viewed and judged through that particular lens. Homosexual orientation is not a choice for most people, but being gay is, and it is this choice which motivates homosexual groups ranging from Dignity to Act UP.

Such a wrong understanding of our identity, I believe, is the source of these disastrous errors because rooting ourselves in anything outside of Christ undermines our efforts at obedience or following him.

If I, whether homosexual or not, do not unite my primary identity first and forever with that of Christ, then any notion I might have of ruling or restraining behavior will never succeed. It is to the identity of Christ, his whole self present in the Eucharist and remembered in the creed, to which I owe my first allegiance. All others, relationships, desires, thoughts, and hopes should be ordered around that one great truth and exist only in relation to him.

In the three years since pledging myself to a chaste life in obedience to Christ, I have communicated about this issue with dozens, if not hundreds, of homosexual men and women, people of all faiths and of none. God has seen fit to use some of what I have written to influence a few to re-examine their assumptions about faith, sexuality, and identity. Some have been led to change their opinions. Others have not. I have been struck at how few have rejected the teaching of the Church outright. Instead, at the risk of being overly broad, the objections I have faced have been of three general types.

First, in an argument based on confusing celibacy and chastity, some advance the notion that while a few may be called to be celibate, the vast majority of homosexual people are not meant to restrain their sexual desires for a lifetime.

Second is a closely related argument which can be summed up, roughly, as "God made me this way, so what I do must be pleasing to him." Here too a few raise the objection that to expect them to sacrifice genital sexuality is to ask them to act "unnaturally."

Finally, some say, "God is love. What I do with my lover has love as its focus. Therefore God must approve of what we do, or at least not disapprove of it, since God is love."

I have encountered a mix of these almost from the beginning, and I think it might be useful to point out how they might be answered. People who confuse chastity and celibacy need to be reminded of what the Church actually teaches about the two (paragraphs 2348-2350 of the new Catechism are a useful resource) and they need to have that distinction brought home in a practical manner. They often need to be reminded that homosexual people are not the only ones God has called to lifelong chastity as lay people. After all, if a heterosexual man or woman can live chastely, why is a chaste life impossible for a homosexual man or woman?

While it is true that this is not a reality all willingly embrace, it is nonetheless true that the same call of obedient dignity that precludes homosexual genital activity also precludes heterosexual genital activity outside of marriage. Chastity is not a matter of extraordinary grace, but is a minimal standard for Christian men and women, no matter their orientation.

Those who argue that homosexuality is God-given need to be reminded of basic facts. Homosexual people are not mentioned in the Bible at all, and if God really created an entire third gender of human beings, wouldn't he have said something about it? Moreover, that something exists does not prove that it exists as God envisioned it. In fact, Scripture teaches the opposite.

Death, disease, and pain came upon not only human beings, but upon all of creation because of Adam's sin (Rom. 5:12, 8:20-23). We bear this fallen creation in our bodies and in our minds, down into our very genes if the evidence of such diseases as hemophilia and Tay-Sachs are to be believed.

That most homosexual people cannot recall ever deciding to be homosexual does not mean that God loves homosexual sex any more than he loves adultery, fornication, or idolatry. Orientation may not be a choice. Actions almost always are.

The third line of reasoning can best be addressed by probing what is meant by "love," both in the mind of the persons engaged in the conversation and in the mind of Christ as well as the magisterium of the Church. If one truly loves another person, does one join him in activity that frequently causes harm? (Even before the arrival of HIV, sexually-transmitted disease in homosexually-active men was the subject of epidemiological concern). If one loves the other person, does one demand that he serve as a sexual object? Can sexually-active homosexuality ever be more than this, given that there can be no other ultimate object than pleasure?

Modern people need to be reminded that God destined a dual purpose in sex, unity between man and woman as well an avenue for the procreation of children. When one completely and intentionally removes either one of these conditions, the use of sex degenerates into misuse.

I have left love for the end because, in the end, that is what this debate is all about. There is an old saying that all the best lies have an element of truth. This is nowhere better illustrated than in the discussion of homosexuality.

Gay activists appeal to the public mind by defending their "right to love whom they choose." In doing so they count on the muddled understanding of love which is so much abroad right now, and on the lie that all loves are equal.

But while they teach truth in generality, there is falsehood in their specific. As much as gay activists might wish to claim gay love imitates the divine, it is simply not so. At the heart of divine love is the transcendent desire to lose self in the good of the other, and, as both my life's experience and reason have taught me, an actively homosexual life precludes that desire. True love, Christ's love, will not bow to the whims of erotic enchantment or desire. True love knows restraint.

Christ told us, just before he showed us, that there is no greater love than that we lay down our lives for our friends (John 15:13). The greatest love is his, the perfect sacrifice of self that others might benefit. It is this most holy, most difficult, most chaste form of love to which homosexual men and women are called. We are summoned, like the apostle Paul, to pour ourselves out for the good of the Kingdom, sharing with many the talents and fruit which, had we been heterosexually oriented, we might have shared primarily with spouse and children.

I do not mean to write glibly about this particular cross. If my words here sound bloodless or impersonal, it is only because I do not wish to make myself the focus. The story of the emotional struggle and sacrifice which have come with this path is long and deep enough that it cannot be told here. Although I have not dwelt on the emotional details, faithful Catholics need to know that there are devoted, chaste homosexuals in their parishes, religious orders, and apostolates and that many of us live lives of deep sacrifice for the sake of the Kingdom. Most of us are quiet. Many of us you will never know. But all of us stand in need of your prayers, charity, and good will.

I end with two quotations relevant to identity and discipleship. The first is from Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited. Julia is explaining her decision not to marry her lover, after their affair and after divorcing their original spouses. Her words have to do with choosing to serve God or something else -- a choice we each face:

"How can I tell what I shall do? You know the whole of me. You know I am not one for a life of mourning. I've always been bad. Probably I shall be bad again, punished again. But the worse I am, the more I need God. I can't shut myself out from his mercy. That is what it would mean; starting a life with you, without him. One can only hope to see one step ahead. But I saw today there was one thing unforgivable...the bad thing I was on the point of doing, that I am not quite bad enough to do; to set up a rival good to God's."⁶

The second is from Bonhoeffer's The Cost of Discipleship:

"And if we answer the call to discipleship, where will it lead us? What decisions and partings will it demand? To answer this question we will have to go to him, for only he knows the answer. Only Jesus Christ, who bids us to follow him, knows the journey's end. But we do know it will be a road of boundless mercy. Discipleship means joy."⁷

Endnotes:

1. For the sake of brevity and more readable prose I use the term "homosexual" for homosexually-oriented men and women. Readers should not think, though, that homosexually-oriented people can or should be defined only by their sexual orientation.
2. This is not surprising considering that even now there is no universally accepted definition of "sexual orientation," much less what causes it and whether or not it may be changed.
3. Cruising is a practice among sexually active gay men of seeking out partners for sex. A "cruisy" place or event is one where a lot of "cruising" takes place.
4. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship (New York: Macmillan. 1963)45.
5. For information on the location of Courage chapters, write to Courage, c/o St. Michael's Rectory, 424 West 34th Street, New York. NY 10001. or call (212) 421-0426.
6. Evelyn Waugh. Brideshead Revisited (New York: Dell, 1960).309.
7. Bonhoeffer. 41. 

https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/homosexuality/out-of-the-closet-and-into-chastity.html

Anyone interested in participating sincerely in this ministry is invited to send e-mail to me. My address at American Online is dcmorrison, and on the Internet it is dcmorrison@aol.com. Each correspondent's identity will be kept confidential.