Weigel on Keenan

Weigel on Keenan

George Weigel discusses Fr. James Keenan, SJ, a favorite of VOTF, and the theologian who addressed the Massachusetts Legislature earlier this year telling them that banning gay marriage is actually contrary to Church teaching.

If you remember, Keenan claimed that the “discriminating” against gays violates their human rights, which he claims supercedes any discussion of chastity. Weigel says Keenan ignores the recent Doctrinal Note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on Catholics and politics and quotes from it:

  • We sheep must keep our eyes on the feet of the Good Shepherd.  There are many undershepherds and sheep-dogs, not all of whom follow the Good Shepherd’s lead.  When they go astray, we run to HIM.

  • I thought this post had to do with Father Keenan. Instead I read a condemnation of all Jesuits.

    C’mon. I understand that many a dissident priest lurks beyond the Jesuit collar. But is there a chance we can discuss Father Keenan’s actual words, as oppossed to “All Jesuits Suck?”

    Just a thought.

  • Father Keenan’s words are words of disobedience…  Saints disagree with the magisterium, yet obey… even when they don’t like the answer…  Christ was obedient until death…

    My point, which isn’t “Society of Jesus” based, is:  “If we here something that doesn’t seem right from a priest or bishop or Catholic Lay expert (i.e.  undershepherd or sheepdog).  Then we should look to the good shepherd for the answer.” 

    In the good father’s case he should OBEY!  If the church reconsiders after his passing (which it probably won’t), then he can be cannonized for his fortitude!

    As for the S.J., I believe the comments of the other bloggers are based on where they see the society now, versus where it has been throughout history!

  • I understand your point, and heartily concur with it, Joe. Here’s mine.

    It’s dangerous to shift the focus from, in this case, Father Keenan, to the Jesuits. Why?

    Because it disperses the responsibility.

    Too often, dissident acts are almost shrugged off by comments like: “what can you expect from a ___ (Jesuit, Kennedy, VOTFer, fill in the blank)” and that’s no good.

    By shifting the focus from the individual, the horror of the act or words dissipates. The clear, individual target (whom George Weigel firmly and effectively addresses) morphs into a faceless conglomeration, which is almost impossible to address except in the vaguest of terms.

    Thanks for letting me explain my point.

  • I’m not sure whether “comment’s” post is directed toward mine, or Dr. Feicht’s or somebody else’s, but it makes no sense to me.

    Hey, I can do a dis-the-Jesuits routine with the best of ‘em. (You can always tell a Jesuit…but not much.)

    If “Comment” feels better by laying the blame for all the “baloney we all have to put up with” at the door of one religious order, I can certainly understand that.

    For one thing, such reasoning would let me off the hook.

    Unfortunately, I can’t deny the fact that my sins have contributed a great deal to all the baloney we have to put up with. To say otherwise would be lying.