LETTERS

National Catholic Reporter, March 26, 1999

A new ethic

* I appreciated Jeannette Batz's article on sexual intimacy as it applies to both heterosexual and homosexual persons (NCR, Feb. 26).

Pope John Paul's belief that sex, if not open to the responsibility of parenthood, is exploitive and objectifying nothing but "bilateral pleasure" -- expresses a duality about body and spirit that has plagued the church for centuries. Such a theology denies the inherent goodness of our bodily creation and its expression in sexual intimacy unless it is tied to procreation. I always thought God delighted in our creation, a creation that offers the potential for deep intimacy and communion in sexual expression.

We need a theology that affirms our sexuality as a gift of God. We need an ethical framework that moves beyond a moral reductionism of gay sexuality as "objectively disordered." The task confronting Catholic ethicists is to create a sexual ethic that values as the norm of sexual morality "human relationality" and its expression as the basis of moral judgment.

The emphasis on the primacy of procreation and procreative intent as essentially determinative of the moral legitimacy of sexual intimacy needs to be re-evaluated as one possible good among others that may be realized through sexual expression. We have yet to explore and fully value the "unitive" aspect of sexual intimacy.

Sexual relationships are moral when they are mutual, supportive of the full growth of each person, committed and faithful. Sexual relations are immoral when they are exploitive, abusive, violent and keep people in a truncated stage of development.

Such an ethical approach would provide more intelligible moral guidance to both heterosexual and homosexual persons in the task of seeking personal integrity and spiritual wholeness.

TOM MONTELEONE Williamsville, N.Y.

Even Drinan nods

* As this century comes to a close, it seems that some editors and proofreaders, tired by their long vigils atop the walls and at the gates, tend, like Homer, to nod a bit. Even some distinguished reviewers are affected.

For example, the Spring Books section (NCR, Feb. 5) contains a review of Thomas O'Connor's Boston Catholics by the distinguished reviewer Jesuit Fr. Robert Drinan, who grew up in Boston and knows well many of its legends.

In his favorable review, however, he grotesquely misidentifies two archbishops: William Henry O'Connell (1859-1944) of Boston and John J. O'Connor of New York, making the latter the uncle of the former's infamous priest-nephew, who adroitly was simultaneously chancellor of the Boston archdiocese and a secretly married realtor in New York.

After the secret was out, Rome formally excommunicated the nephew in 1920 and dismissed him from office. Fending for himself, with his considerable financial skills -- fortified perhaps with funds embezzled from the archdiocese -- he continued successfully in business and eventually became a member of the prestigious Manhattan Board of Trade.

Sometimes bizarre stories about Cardinal O'Connor emanate from malice; sometimes, too, as in this review, from carelessness.

E. LEO McMANNUS Venice, Fla.

Editor's Note: Fr. Drinan acknowledges the error and regrets any confusion it caused. For the record, he is also flattered by the comparison with Homer.

More about George

* Your Feb. 19 editorial about Cardinal Francis George's intervention at the meeting of Catholic college presidents asks, "Has George spoken ... with any of the theologians whose reputations have been smeared and careers ruined under this papal administration to get their take on how this `ecclesiology of communion' works?"

George hasn't consulted me. In 1993 I found myself terminated without any disclosed reason as chair of a theology department of a Catholic college. It was widely believed that the local bishop had a strong role to play in this. Since 1993, I have been unable to secure another position in a Catholic university, despite my record of excellence as a teacher and scholar. At the same time, without either a salary or health insurance, I have had to assume the responsibility of caring for an aging parent.

From where church authorities have placed me, I see George's position as all about control. How can he disingenuously claim that the move to have bishops control theologians is about re-establishing "a network of relationships" in the church? Can George really be unaware that the relationship he is promoting is coercive and not mutual? Is relationship authentic when power is entirely in the hands of one party?

How is ecclesial communion served when lay ministers can be robbed of their livelihoods without due process? Is mutual relationship fostered when lay ministers struggle to pay for educations that do not even earn them security from unjust termination, while the church provides free education for its clergy and grants them economic security denied to lay ministers?

George depicts theologians in a one-sided way as mere teachers Of the faith. This evacuates the theologian's role of critical significance. Theologians also probe the meaning of the faith and seek to interpret it in ever-changing historical circumstances. The Vatican measure George defends is designed to strike fear in theologians as they engage in that critical task. It is designed to make them afraid of reprisal if they should overstep boundary lines that may not even be apparent to them as they follow their vocations.