Father Robert McTeigue does not get invited to sit with the cool kids at the Jesuit table, I’m betting. His fidelity to the faith and teaching of the Catholic Church makes him the least cool jesuit.
I’m betting the other jesuits throw pieces of their impossible burger at him from across the cafeteria. They might even pretend to stumble and spill their soy drinks on him.
But Fr. McTeigue remains loyal to the Church and has a truly first rate mind (as well as a dark sense of humor which borders of apocalyptic.)
CWR:
’m speaking of the moral tradition of referring to the act of sodomy as “intrinsically disordered.” That is, by the very nature of the act of sodomy, regardless of the agent of the act, the circumstances of the act or the intentions of the agent, the act is, always and everywhere gravely immoral.
Some say that we should no longer evaluate acts of sodomy as “disordered” because to do so may cause emotional distress among the agents and advocates of sodomy. Others go a step further and say we must not call such acts “disordered” because they are in fact not disordered—rather they are simply “differently ordered.”
My purpose here is threefold: 1) to show that using the word “disordered” in the moral evaluation of sodomy is accurate, precise and correct; 2) to show that emotional distress is not a sufficient reason to reword or change the teaching as found in the natural law or the Deposit of the Faith—in fact, even the rewording of the teaching is a failure in Christian charity; 3) to show that for reasons of anatomy, philosophy, and theology, it is impossible to change the teaching itself—hurt feelings notwithstanding.
A chain of hardware stores sponsored commercials ending with the words, “the right tool, for the right job.” I say that the language of order/disorder in the moral evaluation of sodomy is the right tool, for the right job. I start my analysis with the observation that we evaluate instruments in terms of their ability to achieve satisfactorily the ends for which they were made.
For example, a match is a safe, effective, and efficient means for lighting a candle; although a match generates heat, it is an inadequate instrument for melting steel. But that’s not a failure on the part of the match. The failure lies with the agent who chose to use an instrument to achieve an end that is obviously beyond the capacity of the instrument.
Some poor choices lead not only to failure in attaining the intended end; these poor choices also result in the destruction of the instrument. For example, you might be able to crack a walnut with Grandpa’s pocket watch—once. The process will destroy the watch because it was not designed to participate in the process of cracking walnuts; it was in fact quite obviously designed for a different and unrelated process.
Poor choice of an instrument can also lead to the destruction of the agent. If one has spilled gasoline in the dark, one could ascertain the location of the spill by lighting a match. The results certainly would be enlightening—albeit only briefly. Such a process would cost the agent more than just the price of a match.
Not choosing the right tool for the right job can result in failure to attain the desired outcome; it can result in the destruction of the instrument; it can result in the destruction of the agent. Clearly, the selection of the right tool has both practical and moral significance.
Please read the rest by clicking here. It’s absolutely worth it.
