Guest Blog: A ‘Redline’ Response to Ron Belgau by Deacon Jim Russell

A ‘Redline’ Response to Ron Belgau

Deacon Jim Russell and the Hermeneutic of Suspicion

I rarely respond directly to Deacon Jim Russell; I generally find that there is so much “spin” in his posts [Evidence please?] that it is difficult to find a productive point of engagement. 

….The gist of my response is simple: despite Deacon Russell’s efforts at spin [Evidence please?], there is nothing contrary to the Catholic faith in ideas like, “obsessing over sexual temptation is unhelpful,” “service to others is helpful in overcoming temptation,” and “friendship is an important avenue of support and intimacy” for those seeking to live a chaste life. [We agree—I never said any of these were contrary to the faith] But since these straightforward claims have sparked Deacon Russell’s critique, I am taking the time to respond to his criticism at length. [Well, except these claims did NOT spark my critique. My essay was about the online video lessons you and your colleagues produced at CatholicSexuality.com. It’s by no means just about you or what you believe, but about the manner and substance of the “trialogue” videos and other lesson content]

Deacon Russell’s first concern is that I supposedly present chastity as a “selfish pursuit.”

….I don’t think Deacon Russell understood what I meant by obsessing over sexual temptation. [But I do understand; my point, however, is that in the framing of the issue in the *trialogue*, you and Selmys and Tushnet merely contrast “obsessing” over “impulses” with service to others—as though these are the only two options.] When I am struggling with a temptation, it is more helpful to turn to God in prayer [Right! Turning to God in prayer and pursuing chastity out of love for God (rather than “obsession”) are what’s *missing* in the trialogue.], or to do something to serve others, than it is to focus on the temptation. Focusing on the temptation itself usually only gives it greater power.

….Over the course of many confessions, however, specific locations were named, and from discussion of how the person confessing tried to resist or gave in, I learned quite a bit about the dynamics of identifying and seducing possible hook-ups in these locations.

I never fell for that temptation. But it was certainly no aid to chastity [But your circumstances were not the same as those around you who lived through these moments—for them, the sharing is an aid to chastity despite your characterization.] to learn exactly where I could go to have sex and how to pick out and seduce potential partners if I went there. And hearing about others’ sins week in and week out tended to desensitize me to the seriousness of sexual sin. [Again, it’s mystifying to me that one would feel desensitized to the seriousness of this when this was precisely the means by which others were quite seriously seeking real help.]  “Hooking up” began to seem like something that some people did on Tuesday, confessed on Friday, and moved on.

When I say that it is unhelpful to obsess over struggles with chastity, this is what I mean. [Right—it’s unhelpful for you That’s fine. But just because you call that “obsession” doesn’t really mean it is obsession.] And since this issue came up in Q&A at a conference where I spoke and Deacon Russell was in attendance, he’s heard some of my concerns with this before. This clarification is not coming out of left field for him.[But you’ve mistakenly assumed my comments were merely about what you think of these issues—instead, my comments were about how the issue was being framed by the three of you in conversation.]

....First of all, there is a difference between healthy self-examination and obsession; obsession is almost always a bad thing. I didn’t say that people shouldn’t examine impulses or attractions to discern whether or not they are in accord with authentic purity of heart. What I said is that it’s not helpful to obsess over sexual temptation. The distinction between healthy and obsessive behaviors is found in many other settings. [Here you’re making my point for me, ultimately—in the trialogue you three only offer two contrasting concepts—obsession over “self-centered” analysis of impulses and going out and serving others. This option—in accord with JPII’s thought—is notably absent in the trialogue exchange, and folks seeing the video for the first time can’t be expected to know all the back-story that you “mean” by obsession. Yes, I know that—but someone taking the lesson will only know what they’re viewing.]

…. As another example, if someone were to say, “Deacon Russell obsesses over his critique of Spiritual Friendship,” they would not be complimenting him for discernment or theological insight; they would be suggesting that his voluminous writing on the subject springs out of an unhealthy psychological imbalance. [Speaking of psychology, nothing intentionally passive-aggressive in this example, right? As it is, I wonder which of us has written more “voluminously” on issues pertaining to SSA?]

….And while this sharing of sexual sin is not healthy in the context of a group with a priest supervising, it can be much more dangerous online or in 1:1 settings. [Others disagree with your assessment—and your characterization—of what is really going on in such groups.] Knowing that a friend is currently struggling a lot with sexual temptation, or knowing something about the particular kinds of sexual situations he finds most tempting, potentially creates near occasions of sin. I have learned that it is healthier to deal with these struggles in confession to a priest or occasionally in conversation with a trusted friend. [I find this assertion deeply ironic, given that you welcome self-identification as “gay” and public and overt “coming out.” Apparently, it’s fundamentally okay to tell the world that—in general—you have these struggles. But it’s “obsessive” and “unhealthy” to go into specifics in a support group?? Everything you assert in this post about the “temptations” associated with sharing in the confidentiality of a priest-led support group could also be asserted about coming out as “gay” in general. All the same “near occasions of sin” seem to readily apply. Why the dissonance on this issue?] And, in any case, it’s much more healthy to focus on what is good than on what is bad. [Well, unless that which is “bad” is lurking beneath a euphemism like “gay,” right? Then it’s healthier to focus on being “gay”?] The Apostle Paul wrote, “whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things” (Philippians 4:8). [And does gay identity count as that which is pure, lovely, gracious and excellent? Ron, this seems to be a very deep inconsistency in your view…]

I believe it is best to exercise interior discernment of my own impulses, consult with a spiritual director, and sometimes with trustworthy friends, and bring my failures to the sacrament of confession. I do not find that sharing these struggles with support group members—who are sometimes virtual strangers—or hearing about others’ sins on a regular basis, is helpful. [So, again I’d ask: why not the same kind of “interiority” about the general circumstance of SSA, if the specifics are so risky and troublesome as to be relegated to the privacy of a spiritual director or trustworthy friends? ]

….The remark Deacon Russell objects to was intended to steer people away from this approach, which I believe is not in accord with authentic purity of heart. [And when I remark about public self-identification as “gay,” don’t I have a similar intention? Again, it seems you excuse the “obsession” of generic sharing of public self-identification, while still calling the private/confidential detailed “coming out” in support-group sharing “obsessive.”]

Deacon Russell also objects to my talking about friendship. [Of course I don’t object to you talking about friendship—an assertion that is beyond silly.] 

….Here, all I can say is that nothing in my quote assumes that spiritual friendship provides the same kind of support and intimacy that marriage provides. [Again, in the context of the video, you move directly and exclusively from “romance” (not even marriage) to “friendship.” Your framing, again, leaves out the notion that “support and intimacy” could come, for example, from family—the very heart of our first and most dominant experience of support and intimacy.] Unless Deacon Russell denies that unmarried persons need support and intimacy at all, it’s hard to see how he can object to talking about the kind of support and intimacy that is appropriate to those who are not called to marriage, especially when the recommendation of friendship comes straight out of magisterial teaching. [Which is why I didn’t raise such an objection. My objection was that the video moves from “romance” to friendship without sufficient care and explanation that such support and intimacy in philia could not be actually similar to that found in eros.]

Just last week, I published a post tracing out the way that recommendations of friendship can be found in the Catholic Church’s magisterial teaching and pastoral practice for homosexual persons, dating back as far as the 1970s. [Right—other than the Catechism, your sources were notably non-authoritative pastoral documents from bishops’ conferences, with some of the committee-generated and non-magisterial documents being deeply flawed. I say this for clarity, not to argue against the value of friendship, which is quite clear.]

Although Deacon Russell rightly highlights the Catechism’s teaching on “disinterested friendship” (a term that I have spent more effort on understanding in context than he has) [Who knew this was a competition? Well, I’d be happy to hear more about your dominant effort over lunch some time], this is not the only term the Church uses. 

Moreover, as I noted in that post, Love Is Our Mission, the preparatory catechesis for the World Meeting of Families, teaches: [Ron, surely you realize that this catechesis is not in the least a magisterial resource? ]

….I have also been invited to speak at the World Meeting of Families. While I don’t think this counts as an endorsement of everything I’ve ever said or written, it suggests that those involved in planning the World Meeting see the “spiritual friendship” I have spoken and written about, drawing on the work of St. Aelred of Rievaulx, as at the very least compatible with the ideas of friendship recommended in Church teaching, and in the preparatory catechism in particular. [Time for a bit of full disclosure here, Ron, regarding what you say above—it’s a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy, isn’t it? It’s no mere happy coincidence that you’re speaking at the WMOF and that its catechetical text contains echoes of the thought found at “Spiritual Friendship,” right? After all, you know full well that none other than Chris Roberts was the editor of the WMOF catechesis—the same Chris Roberts who was once listed as a contributor to your blog site and who was one of the presenters alongside you and other “Spiritual Friends” at the “Gay in Christ” conference held last November in Notre Dame?? You are right that these two facts make it clear that those in Philadelphia who planned the presentations and the catechesis do have a clearly intentional bias in favor of the thinking you and Roberts espouse. I’m just not sure that’s a very good thing.]

One of the things I find puzzling about Deacon Russell is his willingness to shift his own ground in order to find any stick to beat the writers [Gratuitous assertion—evidence please?]  at Spiritual Friendship with. In the early part of his essay, he complained that I mentioned service of neighbor instead of focusing on love of God as the primary motive for chastity [Nope—I alluded to the absence of the “love of God” concept in the video]. But then, he objects to the term “spiritual friendship,” [I didn’t object to the term—I observed that “the Church encourages those with same-sex attraction to pursue disinterested friendship—not the same thing as the ‘spiritual’ friendship encouraged in Belgau’s own project.” The concept given shape by St. Aelred is distinct from the concept of “disinterested friendship.” That was my point.] 

….If it is good to focus on the motive of love of God when discussing chastity, surely it is also good to do so when discussing friendship? [I agree—but that was never my point—I was saying particularly that the only group proposing St. Aelred’s “spiritual friendship” for those with SSA is your project, not the Church directly.]

….But while there is a need for constructive criticism in addressing and correcting problems, that’s not what I see in Deacon Russell’s post. [Probably because my writing has been focused on presenting the problems in the realm of public discourse to a public audience. But we can meet any time, face to face, to charitably address and correct things. I’d be all for that.] He reads what I say through a hermeneutic of suspicion. As a result, he is not offering constructive criticism of my ideas. He’s twisting those ideas in order to criticize them. [Evidence, please? I’m twisting nothing—ideas can be criticized at face value without any twisting whatever.] To engage with him, then, primarily involves an endless effort to untie the knots of his misrepresentations. [And I’m still waiting for any such examples of “misrepresentations.” Cite one, please?]

….Given Deacon Russell’s long history of unfair criticism (of which this post is only the most recent example) [Right—a long history in which you have not provided a single shred of evidence of unfair criticism], I respond directly to him with some trepidation. It would not surprise me if it invites further attacks. [Attacks? Again—if you’re going to accuse me of “attacks,” show me. Where are my attacking words? I want to see them.] 

….[T]here are millions of faithful Catholics asking how best to love their gay or lesbian friends and family members, and thousands of faithful Catholics striving to follow Church teaching. Deacon Russell is a stumbling block for many of them: I have had to talk people out of leaving the Church because they felt pushed out by his attacks on even those Catholics who are striving to follow Church teaching. [Ron, you’re getting into some pretty serious territory and making unseemly accusations. You should know better, I’d think. I’d be verrry careful about portraying yourself as the last man standing between my scandalizing writing and people leaving the Church. I wonder, frankly, if you could have performed the same feat for Jesus Himself at the end of John 6? Was Jesus a “stumbling block” for the many who walked away from what He was telling them? (“See—what hubris! See how that mean deacon has the audacity to compare himself to Jesus?” FYI—of course that’s *not* what I’m trying to do…)]

Those friends and family members, those gay and lesbian Catholics striving to be faithful, need to know what the Magisterium actually teaches. And they need to know that Deacon Russell is distorting not only my own ministry, but the teaching of the Church, as well. [Another serious charge—please actually state your evidence. Or withdraw the charge. Cite examples of my words, wherein I distort your “ministry” and distort the teaching of the Church.]

The irony is that after embracing the role of inquisitor with respect to my writings [Really—so anyone who might challenge your writings are “inquisitors”?], he overtly challenges Church teaching when it is convenient for him to do so. He pretends that he is only “clarifying” Church teaching. [I find this utterly amazing. After three years of engagement, in which I’m supposedly distorting your “ministry” and the teaching of the Church, you select from my writings a post on the proper use and function of the Catechism as evidence????]

However, there are at least three important aspects of that teaching which, in arguing that we can safely set aside the Catechism‘s teaching about lying, he ignores. First, in discussing Laudato Si’, he neglects the obedience due even to the Pope’s prudential judgments (found in Catechism 892 and Lumen Gentium 25). [Ron, you’re really making some rookie mistakes in this paragraph. Obedience due the Pope’s prudential judgments? Wow. Prudential judgments on what? What car I should buy? Also, did you happen to notice my post didn’t even discuss directly any content in “Laudato Si”? Couldn’t you have found something I wrote about SSA to complain about?] In arguing against the authority of the Catechism in certain matters, he ignores that John Paul II declared that it is a “sure norm for teaching the faith” (Fidei Depositum). [I love this one—tell me, Ron—which version of the common teaching on lying in the Catechism was the “sure norm”—the version in Edition One or the version in the Editio Typica?? They’re both “sure norms” according to your view. But of course the correct view is that JPII was saying the Catechism as a whole is a “sure norm.” And it is. I’ll leave it at that because this is all one huge non sequitur to this post, but it makes clear you’ve got no actual evidence to put forth…] Finally, he ignores the proper procedures for raising theological problems with magisterial authorities (defined in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, 23-31; in particular, he has violated the instruction not to address this kind of disagreement about the proper interpretation and application of Church teaching in the “mass media” found in paragraph 30). [I honestly cannot fathom just how streeeeeeetched your assertion is here—please cite any of my words in which I raise a “theological problem” with “magisterial authorities”? Crickets? Right, crickets……]

In the present cultural circumstances, speaking on controversial topics, we need to carefully discern, with regard to every blog post, or social media comment, [and every post accusing a member of the clergy of false teaching, I would add] whether we are building up the Church by sharing the joy of the Gospel and witnessing the truth without compromise, or if our words spring from unmerited suspicion, promote division, confuse Church teaching, or undermine the Church’s mission. Failure to engage in this self-examination and discernment will mean unnecessarily pushing souls away from God. [Perhaps you’ve also noticed—again, as Jesus Himself did—that successfully building up the Church, sharing Gospel joy, and witnessing the truth without compromise can also push “souls away from God”? Wow. If your conclusion is going to simply be a condescending “You’re mean. And I’ve had to save souls from you!” as though that spurious assertion gives you infallible moral high ground and answers all objections raised regarding your thinking, then you shouldn’t have spent 3,000 words on it. A little more “self-examination and discernment” on your part, and you might have saved us both some time.]