Dear Stan,

Having read your article, Church and church “Why the Vatican always gets it wrong about sex,” and agreeing with your conclusion entirely, I hesitate to comment in any way other than by “Bravo.” Yet “I screwed my courage to the sticking post,” (I couldn’t find anything handy to screw) and, thoroughly mixing my metaphors “venture onto thin ice to dip my toe in at the waters edge.”

I have no degree in theology, moral or otherwise, my degree after four years at 95 St. Joseph Street was in B.S. No it is not what you and others who know me think. My degree was in “Barber Shop.” For those marvelous years, and I do mean marvelous, I enjoyed everything about them, I spent my weekly 5 hours of manual labor cutting hair. And, Stan the closest I ever got to the body of knowledge that lay with your cranium was with a scissors and comb.  I listened and tried not to ask too many questions. With all sincerity I thoroughly enjoyed every conversation we had.

So please take my words as a time imagining you are in the barber chair once again and I wish humbly to respond to your comments.

I do without qualification believe that “same sex” marriage, same sex sex, is or ought to be fraught with no more worry or concern than hetero sex marriage or hetero sex sex. My question to you, and I do pose it as a question, rather than a conclusion is? At what point and under what conditions do we as members of a church or any other social structure arrive at any agreed, shared, answer to a moral question. I do question as you do the infallibility of the “church.” But with no less concern do I question the infallibility of the “CHURCH.”

Are we not always in search of a “consensus of faith?” Can we ever in looking for ways to live in peace and harmony with one another not only in the ‘church’ but in society generally speak infallibly? Is it possible to “take a vote” to determine what “the faithful” believe or to what standards their behavior ought to conform. And if it is not by vote or poll that we seek affirmation, than why should the behavior or the agreement of whatever number of well meaning individuals concern  us. Why should numbers or percentages be part of any discussion of “shoulds” or “oughts” the imposition of sanctions, or the establishments of rights and wrongs?

Just a few examples. If the “consensus of the faith” were taken by “church” or other political body regarding the institution of slavery before 1650 or later I believe we would have sanctioned it as a proper order to be perpetuated. I believe it may well have been approved by the hierarchy at that time. St. Paul certainly seemed to tolerate it if not recommend it. And if we in this “god-forsaken” country in which I was born and continue to live would have taken a poll on whether to “strike down the evil of the government of Iraq” then we would have “God forbid” ratified the idiocy of George, “The Shrub”.

I do wish that it would be possible to arrive at the truth, in determining moral or social right and wrong by consensus, or any other measurable quantity. But the truth is a quality, it seems to me. Oh, I believe it exists, the truth that is, but so much discussion, so much listening, so much hunger and longing appears necessary before we may presume to “affirm” it. Or can we ever. I remember someone recalling the words of scripture “What is truth, said Pilot and would not wait for an answer.” But had he waited, Jesus would not have responded, because He did not know. And my god, it will always be a struggle for ever and for all to answer Pilot’s question. We have glimpses of the truth and should be so grateful for even a glimmer. But we have to continue to push back the covers. We might also ask others what they see from their side of the bed.

I also believe that there is something to be said for the remarks of Henrik Ibsen in “The Enemy of the People”, something to the effect that the majority is always wrong. Yes I believe as I said at the beginning that same sex marriage is indeed as right and as good and proper as any other marriage. And for God’s sake and for the sake of any other living person that it was understood as such. But don’t wait until we are joined by others of like mind. It is right now and has always been so.

There are so many other judgments that I know to be true and moral, or true and immoral. I know that “capital punishment” is immoral. That war is never an answer. That those who engage in it should look to a better compass. That to affirm in the face of others that my religion is superior is immoral. To allow guns to be possessed casually for presumed right of self preservation is immoral. To live at ease in the “1st World” without discomfort is immoral. And Stan, I am not certain if there is a consensus on many of those issues.

Thanks Stan for writing the article. And thanks for listening to my “feelings”, for that is what they are.

Stan Writes

Dave:

Thank you for having engaged the nub of the question. I've no idea what we discussed 55 years ago while you were cutting my hair, but I'm certain it was nothing as profound, or as true, as the questions you have raised today. (I'm also pretty sure it had nothing to do with same sex marriage, or sex Anything)!

If you reflect on the life-journey that it has taken for you (and me, and anyone else who is still asking questions) to move from the certainties of 55 years ago to the serious questions you pose in your note, I think you will discover the paradigm for how the institutional Church, or any other body of people, must proceed if it proposes to be an honest guide to its members. Just as the formation of conscience is never complete so long as we have brain cells capable of formulating new questions about the infinite wonder and variety of life, so the project of guiding our fellow humans, whether through the instrumentality of church, or society, is never a box of answers, but openness to new questions. I'm sure this is what Vatican II meant by "reading the signs of the times". The sensus fidelium is, I think, never a declarable consensus, but an ongoing reading of the common-sense response of people to the ever-changing challenges of life.

You've summed it all up when you say: "I believe it exists, the truth that is, but so much discussion, so much listening, so much hunger and longing appears necessary before we may presume to 'affirm' it. Or can we ever." I'm not sure that much is ever gained by affirming the truth; affirmations generally provoke opposing affirmations. Proposing the truth seems more befitting the modesty we should have in the face of life.

Thank you for sharing your "feelings" about the true and the beautiful. But why put the word in quotation marks? Those feelings are the product of your life's project....so far. They express the truth of your journey. They have their own beauty. They need no apology.

Peace. Stan

PS: Cutting my hair today would be a simpler project than it was in days of yore.