Transcript of Recorded Theology on Tap, July 7, 2010, Sheridan’s Irish Pub, Rochester Sr. Patricia Schoelles, President of St. Bernard’s School of Theology and Ministry, on Sexual Morality Audience comments/questions indented with “quotes” (m=male, f=female). Bolded paragraph #’s= Sr. Patricia Schoelles. 1. ....that couple becomes important. It takes on a social entity a social good it takes on an economic good and in fact nations and states and peoples are built on this little tiny building block of two people and that’s more or less called the family. So the one source then of Catholic teaching on sex and sexuality happens to be just the order of the entity, couples make children, children need legal protection they become social beings. 2. The second source, and this is where I’ll kind of stop my remarks anyway, but the second source of Catholic teaching on sex and sexuality is not just, I mean in a way it is this, but this observation of what happens, how people come into being. And that’s been called from about the 13th century or even the 11th century called the natural law. Now the Stoics and the Greeks thought of this. St. Paul even, there’s a reference in Romans to natural law, but the way natural law works is philosophers and then the religionists picking up on the philosophers, thought there’s a moral order to the universe. It’s built into the thing. That there’s a natural way that things happen. And the way they construed it in the middle ages were over three levels. They said, you know what, there is meaning in God, so God has a plan or God has a set of meanings and they called that eternal law. But law, when we think law we’re thinking Albany, or Congress or the policeman who pulls us over for speeding but in the medieval's it was eternal law, it was just that order that meaning that was in law. And God as the Creator then of the whole wide world built that meaning into the world. And people used to take courses in metaphysics and maybe somebody here has taken such a course. But the course in metaphysics was just lets uncover the meaning that God has implanted in the world, by looking around us by studying experience by reflecting on what happens to us in what we see in what we witness. So there’s an order in God or a set meaning in God and God implants that into the universe and we can know that too. We can know the order of the universe by experiencing it and by reflecting on it. 3. So those are the first two levels and the third level then became we, as humans, can construct a moral order or a set of meanings or a set of laws or moral rules or principles that reflect not just the order of the universe but reflect God. And this they called natural law. And natural law became that, a source of Catholic social ethics. If you study the universe you get to know God and it comes from being. So from this, this scheme of things there’s an order in the universe. 4. I’m just going to give you an example. And I’m going to use the example of a function we all have and that is speech. We have, they used to call it the faculty of ‘I can talk, I can speak, I can communicate with you and you can communicate with me and one another. So if we take that to mean we have this facility, we have this capability, and to the natural law theologians and philosophers it was ‘that’s for something’. I can talk, I can communicate, ‘what’s it for?’ Anybody know what’s it for? “Socialization” 5. Communication, socialization, communication. The reason why I talk and what my facility to talk is for is, for the purpose of communication, socialization a sharing communiqué. So if I say that I can talk, I have the facility to talk, it’s for something, what’s it for, communicating. All right, that’s about natural law. Now, having said that, I can also say, gee what’s right and wrong regarding speech then? If it’s for the purpose of communication, what’s wrong about it then? What would be wrong? “[???]” 6. Things that hinder communication, for example? “Slander” 7. Slander. Instead of communicating for the richness of our relationship, I start talking about him, or I start trashing his relationships. What’s another one? “Not talking back”. Page 1 of 14

Transcript of Recorded Theology on Tap, July 7, 2010, Sheridan’s Irish Pub, Rochester Sr. Patricia Schoelles, President of St. Bernard’s School of Theology and Ministry, on Sexual Morality 8. Not talking, right. I shut down and I just keep to my, I just absolutely put walls [???]. What’s another one? “Lying” 9. Lying. There I’m distorting communication cause I’m telling falsehoods. I’m not letting communication happen, I’m [???] with you. So you just look at what the human capacity is and you ask the question what’s it for and then you can tell right, wrong, good or bad. What we encourage you all to do is tell the truth, communicate with your neighbor, don’t shut down and keep to yourself and that’s what, how it works. And that’s generally how natural law works. And that’s how it works and it’s the very foundation of Catholic teaching on sex and sexuality. 10. So now lets try it with sex. Lets pretend we’re 13th century monks or 13th century villagers which most of you would have been very happy being. Say, all right, what is sex for in this natural law scheme of things. Class? “Procreation” 11. Procreation. That’s how you get the next generation. That’s how, that’s your genes, your wonderful genes on. OK so it’s for procreation. And then we might even stretch it and say, even though the medieval's weren’t too big on this, and certainly the 18th 19th century wasn’t, but we might even say sex is for the, to nurture the love between the couple. Ya know, sex is good for couples, and it, it enhances their love for each other, their intimacy, their, their, ya know their communication, their beautiful intimate communiqué. So we can say sex is for those two reasons. OK, very good. So if I just say that sex is for procreation, I think it could be almost like lying, or like a speech function, what things can we say then are wrong if sex is for procreation what would be the no no's in that scheme? “Infidelity” 12. Infidelity. Adultery because we’ve gotta protect the child. Ya know, children need protection, they’re vulnerable they’re little. So the couple has to be a strong social economic unit so betrayal of that bond, that pledge, that vow, that’s bad, absolutely bad because it doesn’t help to nurture the product of procreation. Very good. What’s another one? “Homosexuality” 13. Homosexuality. Now we can’t reproduce in homosexual relationships whether they’re lesbian or gay, ah! of course that’s got to be wrong because sex is for procreation, we’re using natural law. And the Church still teaches they, the Church is against gay marriage, in its official position now, and the Church also just says we’ve gotta protect the offspring of a union so, and we got, procreate, or homosexuality, homosexual and lesbian unions will not result in procreation, wrong because it’s against natural law. “Because of science [???]” 14. Because of science sometimes. Yea, that’s good. Because of science sometimes. We’re living in a civilization where, we all know, I’m sure, a gay or lesbian couple who has reproduced using in vitro or some other form of sperm, you know...yea that… “I haven’t heard of that.” 15. You haven’t heard of it? “Scientifically?” 16. Well, technologically. You know there’s a technique you can use. “So it wouldn’t be a man and a woman”

Page 2 of 14

Transcript of Recorded Theology on Tap, July 7, 2010, Sheridan’s Irish Pub, Rochester Sr. Patricia Schoelles, President of St. Bernard’s School of Theology and Ministry, on Sexual Morality 17. No it wouldn’t. No, they’d have to. I know a couple in New Hampshire I just visited them. They are a lesbian couple and they have three children. And they have used artificial insemination and in vitro fertilization and thus they have created a family. So… “But it’s not both the women it’s” 18. No, no. they have to… “One woman” 19. Right. One. Except in this case both women, it’s very complicated, but both women conceived a child of the same father using technology. OK so that’s, we have to say that but right now we’re just doing the Church’s teaching, in a minute we can talk about homosexuality. 20. How about masturbation. That one. How’s that work? “[???]” 20. Oh absolutely. Very bad because that doesn’t result in procreation either. All right good now what else have we got? 21. Divorce and remarriage… “I have a question” 22. What is it? “At this point did the Church think that it was just like the male sperm which had like a little human?” 23. For a long time science wasn’t too advanced. I mean there’s a guy named Von Lavenhuven(?) 24. Yes, Nathan raises a good question. That the science didn’t always follow the teaching and the teaching didn’t follow the science, both of these last two questions have a lot to do with the understanding of science, but lets put those on hold over here until we’re done with this thing. 25. All right, so we’ve got a bunch of these actions that are, are not acceptable because it’s a violation of natural law and that’s the foundation of the Catholic teaching. It’s just built on this looking at the way the parts fit, looking at the way reproduction happens then you can say these actions are right and those actions are wrong. 26. Another controversial one that’s been present for the Church, a big controversial, since before 1970 is artificial contraception. Using artificial methods of birth control and they said those were wrong too why? “Because they prevented procreation” 27. Exactly. They prevent procreation, that’s what sex is for, that’s the end of sex, so you, at the, by the end of sex I don’t mean the end of sex because that’s not going to happen, I meant the purpose of sex or the aim of sex. Yes sir? “May I ask what [???] 28. Beg your pardon? “Natural, I’m not sure what [???]… artificial. 29. Natural, well artificial would be the use for example of condoms, or would be the use of the pills that would, spermicides, morning after pill, female to arti you know those chemicals those drugs that prevent ovulation, any of those, any introduction of a foreign substance that would impede conception would be seen as artificial contraception. The Church doesn’t say you can’t limit your, the size of your family, oh no Page 3 of 14

Transcript of Recorded Theology on Tap, July 7, 2010, Sheridan’s Irish Pub, Rochester Sr. Patricia Schoelles, President of St. Bernard’s School of Theology and Ministry, on Sexual Morality that’s OK. And they say you should limit the size of your family given your economic resources, your emotional resources, but you can’t use, that’s a good question. You can’t use those artificial means. You can use abstinence or periodic abstinence so that you would abstain from sexual relations on days when fertility is likely to be at its height OK. 30. But anyway, this became the method so the law and it was used this method of natural law reflection was used across nationalities, across European countries; this is all emanating from Europe primarily. It really emerged from the Greeks and it became a neat, handy, absolutely universal way of reasoning and you didn’t have to read Church documents, or have a favorite priest, or go to Church a lot or go to St. Bernard’s which would have helped everybody because everybody could figure out what’s right, wrong, good and bad. Just think ‘what is sex for’ and then anything that inhibits that becomes wrong. And that’s really the basic of the basis of the teaching. The teaching hasn’t changed. It’s far more nuanced than I’m giving it here because there are exceptions and so forth but we’re in a bar, it’s a hot night and it’s Tuesday and we can’t go into all the nuances, but, and that’s basically what I think my job is here tonight. Just present what the Church’s teaching is and that’s what the Church is teaching. Where did it come from? It comes from these two sources. It comes from the confidence that human beings can read nature and can tell what nature’s for and what it ought to do and the Church the Catholic Church wasn’t outside or far distant from other churches or from basic civilizations or from even what our grandparents taught. Even my parents, some of my friends, my sister. Sex outside of marriage for, that’s another one. 31. You can’t, you know you can’t engage in sex outside of marriage because marriage becomes an important protection for that child. Children benefit, there’s a study, studies all over the globe. Children benefit from having two parents. A father and a mother. Dah? They get grants to study this everybody. They say that’s good for children. And again with the economic unit and the social protection, therefore the Church said, you know what we can’t have everybody having sex, there will be all these children without parents who are not part of a stable, social economic entity so we’re going to have a teaching that sex belongs in marriage. And that’s essentially the Church’s teaching. That’s essentially what it is. And it’s not distant from what lots of societies hold, lots of other churches hold, and so forth and so on. 32. However, ladies and gentlemen, if you want me to but I wouldn’t force this on you, I could tell you what you already know too and that is certain questions have arisen about that teaching and they’ve arisen from society, and from people even within the Church and even from theologians and pastors who work with the people of God, work with believing Catholics and they say well maybe this ethic needs to be stretched a little and I don’t want to force that on you, would you like to hear some of those? I’m sure you could give me better than I could. 33. OK, thanks. I just heard, ‘go ahead Sister Pat’ so I’ll go ahead. All right, I can’t give all of them, you can give, you’re all, aren’t you all in colleges while life is happening and everything new is emerging. One of the questions that’s arisen even from moral theologians is this. Didn’t natural law dwell too exclusively on the physical side of sex and sexuality? So these are the way the parts fit, these are the way biology works but perhaps we didn’t attend to the emotional needs of the spouses enough or the couple enough. So we just said, OK this is the physical way sex works, what about the emotional way sex works. And if you start to introduce that, and I just want to say this everybody. 34. I am 62 years old, I know I look much younger but, this is a [???] the…, my grandparents. If you had said, what about your grandparents receiving counseling. Did they have enough counseling? Did they see their therapist? Everybody, I have to tell you the thought of my grandparents and therapists is like as odd a connection as can be. Because in my grandparents age, the thought of their emotional life simply never entered their thought [???]. They got up, they did their job, they raised their kids, they paid their bills, they cleaned the veranda and that was it. And even my parents for them, the whole idea of an emotional life was a very distorted, for them it was like let’s play golf and lets have cocktails and have a good life and recover from the work. That was it. 35. But today, it’s almost like we’re much more conscious of our emotional life and we don’t measure things so exclusively as physical phenomena. So people today might say but if you pointed out, and even in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association, 1973 everybody. Up until that time the general thought of Page 4 of 14

Transcript of Recorded Theology on Tap, July 7, 2010, Sheridan’s Irish Pub, Rochester Sr. Patricia Schoelles, President of St. Bernard’s School of Theology and Ministry, on Sexual Morality American science, certainly the social sciences, was gay and lesbian people are ill. There’s something wrong. They haven’t matured the way they should. It’s almost like a sickness. Homosexuality is a defect. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association comes out and changes its position entirely and says, ya know what, gay and lesbian people are as normal as straight people. It’s not a sickness at all, its just, we’re all on a continuum of sexual orientation. Ya, know there’s no pure heterosexual, pure no..., no, no, no, we’re all along this continuum. Well, that adds a dimension that the Church isn’t quite ready to handle. 36. So the Church, you know they listen to that, but they say oh we don’t listen to that American. So they, the, the teaching stays. But one of the questions that’s arisen today, not just for the Catholic Church. You see the Episcopalian Church almost has split over this very issue. But that becomes one of the real hard questions. What about gay and lesbian people if you let in the emotional life of human beings, see, so that’s one area of conversation in theological circles. That’s one area where questions are raised about the Church’s teaching. And not just from outside the Church but from, with within the Church. Not just the Catholic Church but look at the Presbyterian Church, the Anglican Church, the Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church. So that’s one way in which the ethic, the questions have emerged. 37. What’s another one? In the area of…, if you just said premarital sex, always sex, belongs in marriage. People today want to say well what about the couple who in the United States, for example. Some people say the, you know we’re sexually mature at 13 or 14 but 13 or 14 is no time to get going on this because you have to finish high school, and then you have to finish college and even for some of our more talented young adults they don’t just go to college they go to grad school they go to medical school they go to law school they go to theology school. Could everybody here go to St. Bernard’s please? Theology school would be my idea, you’d be so happy there but…. So they might not be sociologically or socially or economically ready for marriage until they’re what? “35” 38. Yea. 35. “Are we ever?” 39. That’s right. I have found that, we are never. 40. So some people then say well what are we supposed to be, abstemians or celibate until these advanced ages? And maybe, a couple intending to marry who is not promiscuous, we’re not having serial promiscuity, they’re committed to each other they’re intending to be married, maybe premarital sex in those cases is not such an intrinsic evil because we are biological beings and the, the postponement of marriage is such a social phenomenon for, for many of us today. So that’s another area where questions have arisen. 41. Divorce and remarriage. Many Catholic theologians have actually lost their jobs over trying to say that the Church should now permit and divorce and remarriage because couples live longer. I learned one statistic when I was in grad school and that was the average length of a marriage that took place in the 1900s was 15 years and it wasn’t because everybody was being divorced. It was because somebody died. Usually the woman died in childbirth or something related. So, a 15-year marriage, my parents were married 51 years and remember they weren’t attending to their emotional life, I already told you that. So, it was, people are saying now it’s harder to maintain a relationship 51 years through the various stages of adulthood. And then we all recognize marriages breakdown. So maybe the Church should in fact change this teaching and acknowledge that people can remarry after one failed marriage, after a failed marriage. So that’s another area where questions are arising. 42. Now does anybody want to say anything, I can’t… “Can I ask a question?” Page 5 of 14

Transcript of Recorded Theology on Tap, July 7, 2010, Sheridan’s Irish Pub, Rochester Sr. Patricia Schoelles, President of St. Bernard’s School of Theology and Ministry, on Sexual Morality 43. Go ahead. There can be questions now or comments. (m1) “You didn’t mention Revelation as a source.” 44. Revelation as a source. Now how does Revelation, I’ll tell you that. The Catholic Church, I teach from a book now and the thing is called, Reason, Richard Bulla wrote it, it’s called Reason in Search of Faith. The Catholic Church has always taken as its primary source, reason, use of the human intellect can uncover natural law. (found it: Reason Informed by Faith, by Richard Gula.) (m1) “Sure” 45. but in the last 40 years, the Church, believe it or not, the Church had to say, you know, world theologians you ought to get a Bible and read it from time to time because we ought to incorporate Christ back into the moral lives. So, Revelation, what I can say about that without citing specific. Obviously from the first book of the Bible which is Genesis, the perspective in that book ‘appears’ to be marriage is the dominant relationship that Christianity cares about (general talk). So the perspective is one that is rooted in marriage. The union between a male and a female. That was Adam and Eve. That was every single per... (m1) “So how would you jive what you’re saying about this, the idea of marriage being a cornerstone of civilization and the Church teaching is you were saying is no longer necessary to think of it this way.” 46. Well I didn’t say it was, I didn’t say that (yes she did). All I’m saying is, I said the Church teaches and I gave that. The Church teaches this and the Church teaches sex belongs in marriage, teaches that all these other actions that we mentioned, those are immoral. Those are out of the pale. So that, all I said was, do you wanna, there are questions about that ethic that emerge from today and then I, (m1) “You said that the Church also didn’t respond to it.” 47. Well the Church didn’t change its teaching that’s all I mean. The Church… (m1) “But it did respond. It didn’t change its teaching though.” 48. Right. Ok. (m1) “It responded with an explanation.” 49. So it responded by, it did not listen to, it did not heed, it did not, the American Psychiatric Association said this thing, the Catholic Church did not. That was good, let them teach that, that’s all I meant by that. (m1) “Are you familiar with the Theology of the Body?” 50. Yes, a little bit, yes I am. (m1) “Because it has a lot of the answers to a lot of these questions” 51. In that theology, that’s John Paul II’s theology, which he did a very, I would say a theology very much rooted in natural law and again it’s the complementarity of the physical nature of the. You know, he’s a deliberate natural law theologian, as is the guy I use. You know reason is, no I didn’t want to give the impression the Church did anything. The American Psychiatric Association changed its teaching. That’s one source from which questions come today but the Church did not in any way change its teaching. (m1) “Right” 52. It stayed right there. Go ahead. (m2) “You said that Catholic theologians were asking these questions like. Do you have any examples of that or how, at what point can you can consider yourself a Catholic if you’re disagreeing with these teachings? Do you know what I mean. If you’re trying to pose these questions, ya know.” Page 6 of 14

Transcript of Recorded Theology on Tap, July 7, 2010, Sheridan’s Irish Pub, Rochester Sr. Patricia Schoelles, President of St. Bernard’s School of Theology and Ministry, on Sexual Morality

53. Well I think what would happen would be, ‘what’s the source of theology? We can read the tradition, we can read the Bible, we can talk to the people who are around us. (m2) “Right.” 54. So you have increasingly, I mean maybe not increasingly. You have, and maybe some of you know this even in your life but, we may know people who claim to be Catholic. (m2) “Yes” 55. Claim to love Jesus Christ and love the Church and they might even say to us, I am gay and I cannot be celibate or I’ve chosen not to be celibate. Do we say to them well, you must go out of our doors, we have no place for you. 56. Or can we discuss this. I go is there a community of moral discourse. Can we, should we be talking about this tonight. Should I. I could have stopped and I was willing to do that I even thought -- just say the Church’s teaching and let that be the end of it. (m2) “Right.” 57. Just say, I’ve given you that. The Church’s teaching is built on the order of society and its built on this understanding of natural law and then stop. But, people sometimes want to say, they come out to an evening like this, well we want to here, what are the questions that are emerging or what other considerations so that’s where we. (m2) “Are those questions emerging though with, you made it sound like they’re emerging within the Church themselves.” 58. Oh I think it’s emerging from within the Church. (m2) “So can you site any examples of like Bishops or Cardinals that… 59. There’s a book by a theologian, a Catholic theologian by the name of James Hanigan and he does a lot of work on the theology of homosexuality so he’d be an example of a Catholic in good standing who has, who’s raised these questions and written about them. Who’s another one, James Hanigan, Charles Curran, a priest from our diocese. Now he’s lost his job a couple times, but the Bishop of Rochester has endorsed him as a priest, so he’s still a Catholic and a practicing priest. But he thinks we have to change, the Church should teach, change its teaching on seven [???] Divorce and remarriage is one of them, homosexuality is one, masturbation. Masturbation is seen as an intrinsically evil act still, because again it, its you know, thwarting the intention of the sexual faculty. So that’s one. What’s another one? Divorce & remarriage, sterilization, artificial contraception. “Actually, on that didn’t Pope John Paul II loosen that up saying its OK for a married couple to use a condom?” (m1) “No, no” 60. I don’t think so. That didn’t become an official teaching, it could be a pastoral practice. “[???] Some about other countries where HIV “ 61. This Pope even reinforced that teaching when he went to Africa just this year. That condoms are not to be allowed even for the purpose of the prevention of disease. So that remains the official teaching stance of the Church. Go ahead. “You just brang up the question of Africa, you talked about society and how society is changing are you thinking in particular about your mention of the Episcopalian Anglican community and how they’ve come to schism over the issues of homosexuality and same sex marriage and those kind of Page 7 of 14

Transcript of Recorded Theology on Tap, July 7, 2010, Sheridan’s Irish Pub, Rochester Sr. Patricia Schoelles, President of St. Bernard’s School of Theology and Ministry, on Sexual Morality things. What do you think it means, we’re in a much more global society in one way, but they’re very different societies. I mean when you look at something like how the Anglican community is splitting, when you look at the African communities compared to some of the European western communities and the Latin American communities, I don’t really think, we still can’t really say that we’re a global society and I’d just like to hear a little bit about what you think. You know it’s one thing to talk about the American society and how we’re struggling with some of these questions --- but I think the schism in the Anglican Church showed just how different the society is around the world. What do you think it means?” 61. You know, everybody looks at everything from their culture. The culture of their family, the culture of their perspective, you know where did you go to school, what does your family hold, how did, you know where did you come from, what’s you’re socio economic root. Socio economic roots have huge cultures. 62. In Albany, the Episcopal diocese there, St. Bernard’s was also the Episcopal seminary there and that diocese split with the American Episcopal church and went with the African Anglican church because they agreed more with that church on rejecting the ordination of Bishop Robinson who became the Bishop and was recognized by the general Anglican Church though he was an actively gay man and even became a Bishop. That caused the split in that Church. The Albany diocese felt culturally, on this question, more aligned with the African Church with whom they have nothing else in common but they very much stood, on this question there, so I think yea, the African churches are certainly not, probably not even open to being a community of discourse, moral discourse, on this question. Yea. It’s culture, it’s culture. Who else? Somebody? (m1) “I have lots of questions”. 62. Go ahead. (m1) “The Church in the New Testament, even in the Old Testament, the idea that.” 63. The Church isn’t in the Old Testament. (m1) “Well, the foreshadowing of the Church in the people of Israel. Revelation from God in both places, there was masturbation, there was contraception in the societies. And yet God, revealing to us in the Bible said, do something otherwise. I don’t think people’s desires changed now versus back then, I mean I think I would have sort of a lot of the same desires as I would back then and Jesus taught marriage and all these other things. I just don’t see how you can, how you can jive that and how you can jive the fact that Jesus said, you know the road to destruction is broad, the road to follow Me is narrow and He would give us the strength to persevere no matter what it is. So it might be hard but He will always give us the grace to do it.” 64. Right. And I think that’s true too. I’m not, I don’t doubt God for a second. The, there are three passages in the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament, that treat and obviously condemn, or condemn to the obvious or to the reader, homosexual acts. And there are three passages in the New Testament, three passages in the New Testament that do the same thing. Jesus isn’t quoted as having said anything about homosexuality but Paul did in 3 catalogues of sins. So, and that’s right. If your interpretation of Scripture is, this is, you know this is absolutely and directly to me God’s word, I don’t think there’s any question beyond that. You know. There are those interpreters of Scripture though who would say the Hebrew Bible is a collection of books as is the New Testament a collection of books written by communities with certain agenda in mind. And so the interpretation of those six passages has become, you know, one of the points of discussion in this conversation. One teacher I heard, one guy who was talking on this by the name of Casey Lapata who’s a local guy actually, and he said, ‘had the knowledge been available to the writers of the New or the Old Testament that we all possess a sexual orientation, we didn’t choose it, and we can’t change it, “So it’s nurtured?”

Page 8 of 14

Transcript of Recorded Theology on Tap, July 7, 2010, Sheridan’s Irish Pub, Rochester Sr. Patricia Schoelles, President of St. Bernard’s School of Theology and Ministry, on Sexual Morality 65. No. It’s not saying that, we can’t, we’re not. Ethi now some people dispute this too. Can you change your sexual orientation? Can straight people become gay, can gay people become straight, they change. Can, psychologists do that, is there something on television? “Behavior can change but not orientation.” 66. Exactly. OK. But if the authors of the Bible had known what contemporary theology, what contemporary psychology have known and that is we just are gay or straight, we didn’t cause it and its not nurture, it’s not nature, whatever it is we don’t know what it is. (m1) “So at that point you’re denying the Revelation of the Bible, is that right?” 67. I’m not denying the Revelation of the Bible. I… (m1) “If they had known, if God had known?” 68. Not if God had known, if the authors of the Scripture. Where… (m1) “And so those are two different things?” 69. I do not hold that God wrote the books of the Bible. (m1) “OK then that’s a fundamental denial of the Catholic Faith.” 70. Right, exactly. (m1) “OK.” 71. Fundamental denial of the Catholic Faith? No Sir! It is not a fundamental denial of the Catholic Faith. (m1) “The holy, that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit.” 72. So is everything else inspired by the Holy Spirit. I, God, it did not result. The Bible doesn’t result from any direct act of God. The Bible and all the books of it come from communities of believers writing what their experience of Revelation was. (m1) “That’s not Catholic.” 73. OK that’s not Catholic what I just said is not Cath… No ladies and gentlemen that’s not true. The Bible, the authors of the New Testament, you know there’s all kinds of books wait a minute. You know in the Old Testament it says you can stone your… you know if your neighbor [???] yea you should do this you should smite your neighbor if they work on the Sabbath. The Scripture has to be interpreted. (m1) “Sure” 74. Because it is not a direct message from God. I’m just saying some. Some people. “I always felt bad for Lot’s wife for looking back--” 75. I do too. She turned into a pillar of salt. Jesus [???] what?] her. But I’m just saying, these people are saying had the authors of the New Testament known that there’s such a thing as sexual orientation perhaps those catalogues of sins might have been different. You know. Women should always wear head covering in Church. Well, we don’t do that anymore, maybe we should do it because that was God’s direct commandment but I don’t think that’s true. Ya know, that’s not how I read the Bible. “There’s a difference between custom and morals” 76. OK. There’s a difference between customs and morals. “But even that in itself is an interpretation in Dei Verbum from the second Vatican Council talks about the difference between both the literal interpretation of the words of the Bible and the process of Page 9 of 14

Transcript of Recorded Theology on Tap, July 7, 2010, Sheridan’s Irish Pub, Rochester Sr. Patricia Schoelles, President of St. Bernard’s School of Theology and Ministry, on Sexual Morality valid authentic Catholic teaching in the context of interpretation. I mean our Church doesn’t talk about an actual interpretation that’s prescribed by our Church for all the meanings within the Bible. But it does talk about the fact that it’s certainly inspired and sacred by God. It doesn’t mean that it’s, that it’s literally God writing down, we don’t talk about a literal interpretation of the Bible that way. It’s a, it’s a, that’s really not a Catholic way of viewing...” 77. And some churches will do that. Like, you know ‘what God has joined together let no man put asunder’ or ‘he who lives by the sword will perish by the sword’ and Jesus, ‘forgive your neighbor 7 x’s 7, um, you could never, never go to war. I don’t, one of the odd things from my reading of the New Testament, the beatitudes as I read it, if I read this part. How do Christians ever go to war because Jesus said love your enemy. The United States went, and I’m not disputing we could talk about that forever and its not quite a sexual ethic, but you know its how we do have to interpret the book and have to understand how, so yea if you’re gonna take every passage that’s fine. talk over (m1): “so how do we interpret it?” female: ---- for the next theology on tap that’s at this location is Biblical Ethics with Fr. George Hayman. It’s a great time for those kind of conversations.” 78. But I mean we can differ on that. (m2) “I’m just confused when you say how do we interpret the Bible, I thought the Church is there to help us interpret the Bible because the Bible says the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and the Protestants hold a different viewpoint on that in that they believe in private interpretation. They don’t have a central magisterium to help us with that so I feel like that’s where you get into danger when we start saying ‘well you know, the Church says this but some of these people are saying this and it makes sense to me.' You know, that’s how we start straying away from the Church I think.” 79. And that’s, and for that reason I would say don’t read, like don’t take up James Hanigan’s book because what Hanigan does is to, you know as the process of interpretation of Scripture goes on, James Hanigan would say we bring, you know it’s a hermeneutic, it’s a cut with my experience and so. 80. But if you want to say that from the Pope or the Vatican will come those interpretations that’s fine, but don’t read Hanigan or. These questions that I raise would not be questions for you all. It’s not even a factor, just go right on, don’t even look at the Scripture just keep on looking at the teachings and that’s absolutely an option for every Catholic. Absolutely and so stay right there and stay with that understanding. “I would say look at the Scriptures but know that our Church is aligned with those Scriptures and would never contradict the Scriptures you know what I mean?” “But that is a different thing than saying that we offer an interpretation of them. I mean being aligned with them and finding a deeper meaning of them has always been a part of how the Church has balanced our understanding of Scripture and Tradition. To look at Revelation and only those two foundations of balance. But that’s different than actually” 81. And our understandings do grow, Bill Hertzog(?), have you ever heard that, if somebody strikes you on one cheek, turn the other cheek, “Sure” 82. Jesus apparently said that. It right in, ‘if somebody strikes you here, turn the other cheek. And I always thought and I was sort of told, but there is not an official interpretation of that passage either, you know. The Church doesn’t say and ‘here’s what you have to believe about that’. I always thought that was the ultimate sign of meekness. If somebody slaps you here, oh hit me hear too, and that would be, then I would be meek like Jesus. There’s an author by the name of Bill Hertzog and Bill Hertzog is a superb Scripture scholar and he has done quite a bit of extensive research about the community from which that passage emerged. And he said, in fact, it was quite the opposite. That it was meant to designate, which was a practice because there were purity rules among the Hebrew people. It was kind of like if somebody Page 10 of 14

Transcript of Recorded Theology on Tap, July 7, 2010, Sheridan’s Irish Pub, Rochester Sr. Patricia Schoelles, President of St. Bernard’s School of Theology and Ministry, on Sexual Morality slaps you on the one cheek, turn to them the other cheek as well, and then they’re gonna have to slap you with the back of their hand and that’s gonna be the ultimate insult and what you’re doing is not succumbing meekly like Jesus, you’re daring them. You know, you’re actually standing up for yourself. That’s enormously different. Two interpretations of the same passage. And I think for me anyway that goes on with the, the interpretation of Scripture and the understanding what’s there is an ongoing task and we’re still at it. And when I heard Hertzog say that I said, and he does all this work about the Jewish purity laws, about which I know nothing. So I’m just, my only point here is some people say the Bible is still being interpreted by the people of God. You all have it different, and that’s fine. But the people who would be raising these questions about the Church’s social teaching are engaging in this discussion would be more of the let. They would be much more let’s keep looking at Scripture and uncovering what, what’s there. Go ahead. “Can you speak to papal infallibility?” 83. There’s never been, in the moral, I’m a moral theologian, and moral theology is an odd discipline but it has to do with the, the rules and the moral teachings of the Catholic Faith. There has never been a teaching, a moral teaching proclaimed to be infallible. In fact, the teaching on infallibility wasn’t proclaimed until 1854. So for all those other years they didn’t have the doctrine of infallibility. Though there may have been some understanding that when the head Bishop talks lets all listen. I know a wonderful theologian who lived was in Rochester for a time, David Reed, he says that infallibility ultimately means the celebration of consensus. Those teachings we all hold to be true. But they don’t happen to be the moral teachings. And many moral theologians think there will never be a teaching of, you know declared to be infallible, that’s a moral teaching. Just because moral actions take place in the concrete. You might say the worst evil of all must be war. Maybe you’d agree with that, I don’t know. I take to be the worst evil that human beings engage in is war. Would that ever be infallibly declared to be immoral or unengagable in? Probably not because we can all imagine there may be some nuclear attack by the worst country, you know. So there’s never been an infallible teaching that’s a moral teaching. Many people think there will not be. Since 1854 there have only been three doctrines declared infallible and that is the decree on infallibility itself and that’s doubtful, the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption of our Lady. But those are the only proclaimed infallible teachings. One of the people, our own Bishop you know, McQuaid, was the first Bishop of Rochester. Did he vote on infallibility when it was brought up at the council? No. He came home. I’m not criticizing his courage, but I am saying he declared he had to go home and did not vote on infallibility. But one of the theologians who was there that day said, ‘infallibility will create confusion.' He goes two kinds of confusion in the minds of the faithful. He says one is, some people will assume, every time the Pope speaks it’s an infallible teaching and that isn’t what it was intended to be. Its gotta be under very special circumstances. Then he said there are going to be these other kind of Catholics, on the other hand who are gonna say, unless the Pope declares it infallibly I’m not listening to it. And I think we’ve seen both those kinds of Catholics. I am both those kind of Catholics actually. Ya know sometimes I say well it’s not that big a deal but over here I’m saying well the Pope said it so it must be. But there’s never been a moral teaching, a sexual teaching that’s been declared infallibly and there probably won’t be. I’d say that. Anybody else? “What about polygamy. I mean like in the vein of like community being the new marriage in a sense of raising children? The importance of community versus just two people---.” 84. The Catholic Church is against polygamy because they claim one man one woman that’s what marriage is. It’s a union between two spouses and that’s the best circumstance for the children. They also, ya know building on the Bible marriage is the relationship of note. Marriage is obviously relationship understood there and it’s a single marriage. Some people, this is another example though of what I’m telling you. Some people, from for example a culture like Africa when they say gee polygamy is a wellestablished custom, why can’t the Church stretch for the people in the cultures of Africa where polygamy is a way of life? And again, that would be, I guess, a matter of moral discourse for communities in Africa. Couldn’t, if that’s the way people experience marriage, couldn’t the Church also stretch for that culture but thus far it has not happened. (m1) “So could you relate that to the Church in Corinth at the time?” Page 11 of 14

Transcript of Recorded Theology on Tap, July 7, 2010, Sheridan’s Irish Pub, Rochester Sr. Patricia Schoelles, President of St. Bernard’s School of Theology and Ministry, on Sexual Morality 85. Ah, yea, I mean. (m1) “So the Church in Corinth was very open sexually” 86. The Church? (m1) “Not the Church I’m sorry” 87. The people. (m1) “The town, right?” 88. Yea, yea. (m1) “and the people who converted to Christianity changed because the Church required them to change, right?” 89. [???] Yea the Church, the Greek for… (m1) “So wouldn’t that be kind of similar?” 90. Well the Church has, you know the first council whenever, you know would they, would the Church continue to impose Jewish rules on the now Gentile community. That debate was a hot debate and it could have gone this way and it could have gone that way. But they decided then that they would give up what would have been I presume the more rigid standard there. The Church for whatever reason has not accommodated those advocates of the African culture and I’m not as familiar as you are with the struggles in Corinth but I would say (m1) “They put sexual restrictions on the Church at that time. Right?” 91. Who did. The people of Corinth or… (m1) “The Church” 92. The leaders of the Church. (m1) “So the council of Jerusalem they met and they said so OK what do we do with the people in Corinth.” 93. Yea but you, yea right. (m1) “and they gave them just a handful of rules right?” Abstain from blood of sacrificed animals and be sexually pure right?” 94. I’m not sure that I can draw a parallel from that because I haven’t studied. All I know is that you know there were some conversations, I don’t know if they’re still being advocated but could the Church then also accommodate this cultural expression of familial love. “In Corinth a lot of the sexual expression was connected to paganism and sexual prostitution in the temples. So it wasn’t just a marriage issue, it was connected to idolatry and it was connected to a different understanding of the Divine. So it’s a tough analogy to make between a cultural experience, you know even if you look in the Old Testament the experience of concubines and second wives it’s a very different analogy. It’s a tough analogy to draw.” 95. Anybody else have a question? 96. Scripture? The Church continues to teach as the Church has taught for a long time now. Are there discussions going on around those teachings? Yes. Do those discussions emanate just from people hell bent on destroying the Church or from outside sources? No. There are questions that arise within the Church even from some of the most trained theologians. And every five years all the Bishops of Rome or Page 12 of 14

Transcript of Recorded Theology on Tap, July 7, 2010, Sheridan’s Irish Pub, Rochester Sr. Patricia Schoelles, President of St. Bernard’s School of Theology and Ministry, on Sexual Morality all the Bishops of the Roman Church go to Rome and they report to the Pope what are the biggest issues and sources of discouragement and sources of questioning and I am assuming though I’ve never been a Bishop and I probably won’t be, but I am assuming that many of those conversations take place around the central ethics. And I’m presuming that Bishops do have to raise, they have couples who are good, claiming to be good faithful Catholics who do use artificial contraception. They have people who are gay and would like not to have to leave the Catholic Church, the lesbian, but to find a way to still be Catholic. Do divorced couples who have remarried would like still to be Catholic and in communion. So I’m assuming those kinds of conversations go on between the Bishops and the Pope. And how do we be pastorally sensitive and how do we respect where the Spirit is alive among us. Go ahead. “I thought remarriage is OK as long as the previous marriage was annulled.” 97. That’s right. You can be remarried if your marriage is annulled. So in that case it isn’t divorce and remarriage, it’s divorce, annulment and remarriage. Yea. Thank you that’s a good correction. “ [???] I know people who have been married 40 something years and then they get an annulment. It seems kind of [???] the children are now [???]” 98. Yea. The annulment question would be another good one for this… “We've actually done that one before and its had a lot of response because the question about the children is not a question of an annulment its the sacramentality of the marriage to begin with. Children are still legitimate no matter what. It has no bearing on the legitimacy of the children of the marriage. And its only from the sacramental perspective its not from a civil perspective. Maybe its time to do a repeat.” 99. Nobody I know is arguing. There’s no theologian or moral philosopher whose making the case that adultery’s a good idea. You know, that one’s just not good. But people are trying to make the case that perhaps gay sex is acceptable in some circumstances. Maybe masturbation’s not always intrinsically evil maybe, all this kind of stuff. But I don’t shy away from the conversation. I think that at least in an academic setting those sort of conversations ought to go on because it helps us understand things better. “I think I sort of understand maybe not allowing but possibly that accepting but for the social wellbeing of the persons who are gay its important to have that social relationship.” 100. Yea. There’s a guy named Jim Keenan and he’s again a Jesuit priest. He’d be another theologian for your list. Jim Keenan is a theologian Jesuit priest at a Boston College. Jim Keenan says, makes an analogy about divorce. And he says the Catholic Church, even though it doesn’t recognize divorce, it doesn’t ask its people not to enjoy the protections, the civil protections that accompany the civil action of divorce. So Catholics can go through a civil divorce and they can therefore benefit from the legal protections offered. Keenan makes an analogy then to what we would call gay marriage or partnership of gay people legally recognized whatever you want to call it, union. And he says could Catholics engage in that civil practice, enjoy those civil protections something akin to --- yea, yea --- his name is James Keenan. He’s got a lot of articles and books. “… and he’s all about various cities saying that it is allowed [???]. 101. Yea. 102. Civil union or some kind of a union, yea, that didn’t have to be called marriage… [???]. “Which is technically different from the sacrament of marriage.” 103. It’ll be awhile before the Church, if ever, recognizes the sacramentality of that same-sex union. But, you know as the conversation goes on civilly its going to affect the Church in different ways in different Churches and its every Church everybody look up Presbyterian proclamations on gay sex, it’s every church it isn’t just the Catholic Church its all churches.

Page 13 of 14

Transcript of Recorded Theology on Tap, July 7, 2010, Sheridan’s Irish Pub, Rochester Sr. Patricia Schoelles, President of St. Bernard’s School of Theology and Ministry, on Sexual Morality 104. Don’t you want to have these snacks and drink this beer? Now this is the point everybody, this is Theology on Tap. My role is to just introduce the topics, your role is to stay here now and get into a heated conversation about these issues. I’m going home to watch my air-conditioned television, it’s not my air-conditioned television. But these are topics that are of great use to everybody to discuss. But all I’ve tried to do is tell you, this is the Church’s teaching, there are conversations that give some hints about that because you don’t want to be horrified, a. that there isn’t any conversation or b. that there is. Either way, you’re not going to be horrified because we’ve had this evening and you can keep eating the snacks. Go on, go to it. Applause and thank you’s. “Thank you very much Sr. Pat. We have, if you’re interested in the rest of the Theology on Tap series, I have a flyer over here including the one on August 11 on Biblical Ethics with Father George Hammon who is a Scriptural Scholar and can talk a little more about those perspectives. Please join us next week, we go to multiple locations and next week we are Johnny’s Irish Pub. (general talk) Join us at 7:00, if you’d like more information the list is here. Thank you very much and Thanks to Sheridan’s and Thanks to U of R for cosponsoring the night. Applause, general talk. (m1) So on this topic. I was kinda thinking we were going to be talking about the theology of the body. I don’t know if anyone’s familiar with John Paul II’s which really gives the why of the line of teaching, the Church teaches this. It’s a very positive thing and for me it was a big deal and it actually spawned me coming into the Catholic Church. The teaching of the theology of the body. There’s a, sponsored by the station of the cross [???] there’s this guy, Father Thomas Loya, he’s an expert on the theology of the body. “There’s a new book out now too on the theology of the body. Last month there was a new book that came out.” (m1) “So if you wanna hear authentic Church teaching come to this one.” (m2) “Are those handouts? Can I see one” (m1) Yea, yea, you can pass these around.” 105. These guys didn’t get any here. These fellas didn’t get any of that over on this side. (Sr. Schoelles helping to pass the flyers around and even repeats, the “authentic Church teaching.” END OF SESSION

Page 14 of 14