homosexuals in priesthood

[John Lowell]

Socrates,

You're not interested in having me share my feelings about the quality of the reception I've gotten from some, you included, at this supposedly Catholic site? If I recall, that was the question I addressed to you in my last post, was it not? You're not hijacking now, are you?

John Lowell

Edited November 26, 2005 by John Lowell

[argent_paladin]

[quote]“The Vatican is prudent not to have an absolute ban on admission of homosexuals to the priesthood: there are too many good men with homosexual tendencies who have served the Church with distinction,” said Donohue.

“But there is a monumental difference between someone who is incidentally homosexual and someone for whom the gay subculture is central to his identity,” Donohue pointed out. “Only those blinded by sexual politics will fail to make this distinction.”

Donohue also made reference to the sex-abuse scandal in the Church, stating that while most homosexual priests were not molesters, most molesters were homosexuals.

“The John Jay Report made this clear: 81 percent of the victims are male and almost as many are postpubescent. This is not called pedophilia—it is called homosexuality,” he said.[/quote]
I think that these two points are not sufficiently getting across. We need to reiterate them as often as possible. Banning someone who is homosexual or gay, is banning someone for whom that part of themselves is a defining part of their identity. It is not the same as banning someone who has that tendency under control. In that case, it is not the defining part of their identity.
Also, many critics say that this is a distraction from the real issue of pedophilia. Donohue correctly points out that sexual interaction with postpubescent boys is more accurately associated with homosexuality, rather than pedophilia. And laxity in standards due to homosexuality, I would think, correlate with laxity in standards of pedophilia.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='John Lowell' date='Nov 25 2005, 11:34 PM']Socrates,

You're not interested in having me share my feelings about the quality of the reception I've gotten from some, you included, at this supposedly Catholic site? If I recall, that was the question I addressed to you in my last post, was it not? You're not hijacking now, are you?

John Lowell
[right][snapback]800614[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

John,

Hang around and you'll realize there are some very vocal people on this site. Sometimes folks get a bit testy. It's a problem, we keep rehashing old debates as we get a steady influx of new people. So, the questions you've raised have been dealt with and the battle lines drawn. You'll certainly find those who are more in line with your thinking, trust me.

I voted for Bush though...he was electable.

[John Lowell]

toledo_jesus,

Thanks for chiming in. It's a pleasure to meet you.

Not to drag-out this discussion, but the pragmatic impulse that moved you and so many others to vote for Bush rather than sit out the election as I did itself has had more than its share of untoward consequences. It is precisely the dilema of such pragmatism that it made possible Bush's taking for granted the knee-jerk support of the main Evangelical leadership, Dobson, Land, Colson & Co., when he nominated Harriet Meirs for a seat on the Supreme Court. Predictibly, Dobson almost vomited on the rug in his rush to support her. Other conservatives, sensibly, either rejected her or took a wait and see attitude. The resistance paid-off with the withdrawal of Miers and the substitution of Alito, a Catholic with a Catholic's outlook on social questions, it would seem. Catholics owe Bush nothing for the Alito appointment. Being forced on him it had absolutely nothing to do with his core instincts. In 2001, we got federally funded stem-cell research together with the usual accompaniment of lies and distortions from Bush as another consequence of this pragmatism. I'm glad I have not been a party to this guy's version of "pro-life", thank you. With every respect to you personally, I think you bought the farm, frankly.

Best regards.

John Lowell

Edited November 27, 2005 by John Lowell

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='John Lowell' date='Nov 26 2005, 11:14 PM']toledo_jesus,

Thanks for chiming in. It's a pleasure to meet you.

Not to drag-out this discussion, but the pragmatic impulse that moved you and so many others to vote for Bush rather than sit out the election as I did itself has had more than its share of untoward consequences. It is precisely the dilema of such pragmatism that it made possible Bush's taking for granted the knee-jerk support of the main Evangelical leadership, Dobson, Land, Colson & Co., when he nominated Harriet Meirs for a seat on the Supreme Court. Predictibly, Dobson almost vomited on the rug in his rush to support her. Other conservatives, sensibly, either rejected her or took a wait and see attitude. The resistance paid-off with the withdrawal of Miers and the substitution of Alito, a Catholic with a Catholic's outlook on social questions, it would seem. Catholics owe Bush nothing for the Alito appointment. Being forced on him it had absolutely nothing to do with his core instincts. In 2001, we got federally funded stem-cell research together with the usual accompaniment of lies and distortions from Bush as another consequence of this pragmatism. I'm glad I have not been a party to this guy's version of "pro-life", thank you. With every respect to you personally, I think you bought the farm, frankly.

Best regards.

John Lowell
[right][snapback]801320[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Yes well, in a perfect world we could have all written in Pope John Paul II or Cardinal Ratzinger. Pragmatism shows results, purists are often disappointed. Cultural wars are won in increments.
I'd be interested to know who you voted for. Peroutka perhaps? LaRouche? I'm just kidding with that last one...

[dandy777]

Where did you get that article from MC Just?

[MC Just]

i get all the new articles in my email from Catholic league.

[dandy777]

i see. can you give us the link to the website please. i'd like to know more. thanks.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

the Iraq war protesters are wrong becasue the reason they are protesting the war is incorrect. If anyone should protest the war it should be the Holy Father which he did and no one else.

[MC Just]

[url="http://www.catholicleague.com/05press_releases/quarter%204/051123_gays_priesthood.htm"]http://www.catholicleague.com/05press_rele..._priesthood.htm[/url]

i deleted the one in my email after i posted it.lol here is what the site has.

[dandy777]

thanks mc!

[John Lowell]

toledo_jesus,

Not a bad idea, having written in Joseph Ratzinger's name. Sadly, he wouldn't have qualified on the basis of nationality.

I considered voting for the Constiutional Part'y's candidates but, on investigating, decided not to. I'm afraid I picked up too many signals of Restorationist Calvinism in them, you know, a certain willingness to take seriously the possibility of reintroducing stoning for homosexuals and adulterers! I will make this concession to them, however: They are not at all deceived about Bush's pro-life bona fides. That appealed to me. But there's just too strong a wiff of biblicist Rushdoonyism in them for Catholic sensibilities. They'd do well to reject that.

But, no, I didn't vote in 2004 or in 2000 either, actually. I can smell a liar a mile away and the scent was particularly strong in the case of George Bush. If I'm going to identify myself with something I certainly don't want it to have that kind of character, eh? I've watched carefully as the Evangelical leadership accompanied throughout by certain prominent Catholics, Donohue among them, has fallen into a disgusting Republican syncophancy over the last decade or so. These were people I'd once held in high regard. I see them today as irredeemably noxious, as oily as the politicians whose mouthpieces they've allowed themselves to become. In my opinion, Catholic action at the civc level must proceed entirely on it's own, eschewing connections of the Neuhaus, Evangelicals and Catholics Together variety.

I'll make a prediction: We'll never have an opportunity beyond Alito's likely successful appointment to make the Supreme Court more favorable to the reversal of Roe vs. Wade. Bush's lying about the war has undone both him and the Republican Party. Don't count on a Republican Congress being returned in 2006.

Regards.

John Lowell

Edited November 27, 2005 by John Lowell

[toledo_jesus]

So you didn't even vote? that gives you no right to complain. Even symbolically throwing your vote to a candidate who is going to lose is better than not voting.

But aside from that, I agree that the Republicans won't hold onto power for much longer. If the Democrats don't rise again then it will be a new party. I've actually become convinced that America will not be a hospitable place for Catholics of good faith in the coming years. I'm saving up to buy my own island.

[Socrates]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Nov 27 2005, 03:58 PM']So you didn't even vote?  that gives you no right to complain.  Even symbolically throwing your vote to a candidate who is going to lose is better than not voting. 

But aside from that, I agree that the Republicans won't hold onto power for much longer.  If the Democrats don't rise again then it will be a new party.  I've actually become convinced that America will not be a hospitable place for Catholics of good faith in the coming years.  I'm saving up to buy my own island.
[right][snapback]801700[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Hijack, hijack, hijack!!!
I've started a new thread/poll to post about this on! Take it there!

Thank you, gentlemen.

[John Lowell]

toledo_jesus,

Nope, didn't vote. Last presidential candidate with whom I felt reasonably comfortable was Pat Buchanan but even Buchanan, in the teeth of everything he's complained about for the last two decades, endorsed Bush last time out. He rationalized the endorsement on the basis of his hope for positive Court picks only to go ballistic with and about the Meirs nomination. Buchanan proved himself a shlemiel with the Bush endorsement. His age, I'm afraid.

So you think by not voting I've sacrificed my right to complain? While I haven't always felt this way, in recent years I've come to feel that voting ought to be a positive act, an act in favor of something as it were. When I can't find a candidate suitably fitting that description, to boycott seems to me the best course. Maybe you can find a spot for me on that island you're planning to buy.

I think you've put it very well to say that in coming years America will not be a hospitable place for Catholics of good faith, one reason that I felt particularly enthusiatic about Joseph Ratzinger's ascendancy to the papal office. His writing would indicate a real grasp of the place of the Church in the present environment, unlike John Paul II who seemed to me overly optimistic. Ratzinger sees a Church with a pared-down institutionality, a bit more lean and mean with a focus on essentials. The man for the hour in my view. We'll survive as God promises us that way.

Very best regards.

John Lowell

Edited November 27, 2005 by John Lowell

[cappie]

[b]Can gays be priests?[/b]

[i]Timothy Radcliffe [/i]


The long-awaited Vatican document on homosexuality in the priesthood, due to be published next week, has been substantially leaked. Here the former Master of the Dominicans assesses what it has to say about gay men and their suitability for holy orders

TWO WEEKS AGO I was in Nova Scotia, giving a retreat for the bishops and priests of eastern Canada. A priest sent up a piece of paper with a question that he was too shy to ask publicly: “Will this document on the admission of gays to the priesthood mean that I am not welcome anymore? Does it mean that people like me are second-class priests?” I have heard this same question, in one form or another, from priests all over the world. The forthcoming Vatican document on homosexuality and the priesthood (see page 40) is the focus of intense anxiety, which is why we must attend to exactly what it says.

There are two principles to bear in mind: first, we must give it as positive an interpretation as possible. This is not a matter of putting a positive spin on documents but of trying to discern what are the true intentions of the authors. Our media are filled with accusation and this document will be denounced as another attack on gay people. This denunciation also occurs within the Church. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has often given tendentious interpretations of the writings of theologians. Theologians, in turn, give the most negative possible interpretation to Vatican documents. Nothing good can come from Rome! As a Church we must find another way of listening to each other, which really attends to what is said. Justice and truthfulness demand this.

Second, a vocation is a call from God. It is true that, as the document says, it is “received through the Church, in the Church and for the service of the Church”, but it is God who calls. Having worked with bishops and priests, diocesan and religious, all over the world, I have no doubt that God does call homosexuals to the priesthood, and they are among the most dedicated and impressive priests I have met. So no priest who is convinced of his vocation should feel that this document classifies him as a defective priest. And we may presume that God will continue to call both homosexuals and heterosexuals to the priesthood because the Church needs the gifts of both.

The Church has a right and a duty to exercise careful discernment in the admission of seminarians. When the document says that this has been made “more urgent by the current situation”, then presumably it is thinking of the crisis of sexual abuse that has shaken the Church in the West. So there are two questions: does this document provide good criteria for discerning who has a vocation? And will it help to address the crisis of sexual abuse?

The document insists that a candidate for the priesthood must reach an affective matur- ity that “will allow him to relate properly with men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood for the ecclesial community that will be entrusted to him”. Let us leave aside for the moment the question of “spiritual fatherhood” and focus on affective maturity. What does this mean?

The document states that the Church “cannot admit to Seminary or Holy Orders those who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture”. The first criterion is straightforward. The same could be said of those who are actively heterosexual. The second two need clarification.

What is it that is meant by a “deep-seated homosexual tendency”? The counter-example given by the document is of someone who goes through a temporary phase of homosexual attraction, and asserts that the seminarian should have overcome this at least three years before ordination to the diaconate. That would not cover all the cases of seminarians who are reflecting on their vocation in the light of this document.

It could also be interpreted as having a permanent homosexual orientation. But this cannot be correct since, as I have said, there are many excellent priests who are gay and who clearly have a vocation from God. Perhaps it is best understood as meaning that someone whose sexual orientation is so central to his self-perception as to be obsessive, dominating his imagination. This would indeed pose questions as to whether he would be able to live happily as a celibate priest. But any heterosexual who was so focused on his sexuality would have problems too. What matters is sexual maturity rather than orientation.

Then there is the issue of supporting “gay culture”. It is right that seminarians or priests should not go to gay bars and that seminaries should not develop a gay subculture. This would be to celebrate as central to their lives what is not fundamental. Seminarians should learn to be at ease with whatever is their sexual orientation, content with the heart that God has given them, but any sort of sexual sub-culture, gay or straight, would be subversive of celibacy. A macho subculture filled with heterosexual innuendo would be just as inappropriate.

But does supporting a “gay culture” mean only that? As the document says, the Church must oppose “unjust discrimination” against homosexuals, just as it does racial discrimination. That means that all priests must be prepared to side with gay people if they suffer oppression, and be seen to be on their side. Of course this raises complex issues. To oppose gay marriage will be seen by some people as discrimination, whereas in official Catholic teaching it is not. If one becomes involved in any opposition to discrimination, then one is liable to be misunderstood. It is a risk that one must sometimes take.

Finally, there is the question of “spiritual fatherhood”. This is not a concept with which I am familiar. Can only heterosexuals offer this? This is the view of the Bishop to the American armed forces, who said recently: “We don’t want our people to think, as our culture is now saying, there’s really no difference whether one is gay or straight, is homosexual or heterosexual. We think for our vocation that there is a difference, and our people expect to have a male priesthood that sets a strong role model of maleness.” I cannot believe that this is what is intended by the document. There is little evidence of muscular Christianity in the Vatican. If the role of the priest was to be a model of masculinity, then he would be relevant to less than half of the congregation and one could therefore argue that women should also be ordained as role models of femininity. I presume that the “spiritual fatherhood” is above all exercised through the care of the people and the preaching of a life-giving fertile word, but neither has any connection with sexual orientation.

It is extremely urgent that we form priests who are “affectively mature”, and able to relate easily to men and women. This document tries to identify criteria that will help to discern that maturity and points to issues that are undeniably important. These criteria need to be applied equally to all candidates, regardless of their sexual orientation.

Our society often gives the impression that heterosexuals and homosexuals are virtually two species of human being. But the human heart is complex and patterns of desire shift and evolve. I have known priests who thought that they were gay when they were 30, and then discover that they were not, and vice versa. If we are to form priests who will live their celibacy fruitfully then they must be at ease with themselves, in all their emotional complexity, without being deluded into thinking that it is the core of our identity. That is Christ. “It does not yet appear what we shall be, but when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” (I John 3:2).

Our society is obsessed by sex and the Church should offer a model of a sane but not compulsive acceptance of sexuality. The Catechism of the Council of Trent taught that priests should talk about sex “with moderation rather than copiousness”. We should be more attentive to whom our seminarians may be inclined to hate than whom they love. Racialism, misogyny and homophobia would all be signs that someone could not be a good model of Christ.

The document concludes by urging seminarians to be truthful to their spiritual directors. To lie would not correspond with “the spirit of truth, loyalty, and availability that must characterise the personality of one who considers himself called to serve Christ and his Church in the ministerial priesthood”. This is of fundamental importance. But if the criteria of this document are interpreted in a narrow sense to mean that no one who is gay can be ordained, then some seminarians would find themselves to be in an impossible situation. If they speak openly, then they may not be accepted. If they do not, then they are failing in transparency. The danger is that the most honest may therefore leave and the less truthful stay, and so we would form a priesthood that was immature, ill at ease with itself, and more liable to continue abuse. It is therefore most important that these criteria are not interpreted in a way that drives people into concealment. That would actively impede the formation of priests who are affectively mature.

[i]Timothy Radcliffe OP, former Master of the Dominicans, is now at Blackfriars, Oxford. His latest book, What is the Point of Being a Christian? is published by Continuum next week. [/i]

[journeyman]

Cappie,

That article seems to echo one of Paul's letters . . . the one about putting off the old man and putting on the new when one comes to Christ . . . the priest who accepts a vocation to the priesthood should put off the old behaviors and patterns and put on new ones, replacing the old sinful self with one based on righteousness

Moreover, isn't the same true of the laity, who are called to be new by virtue of their baptism?

Or am I missing something important?

[Socrates]

I think the article Cappie quoted is misleading liberal drivel, as it tries to downplay the disorderedness of homosexual "attraction," and saying it doesn't matter whether one is "gay" or "straight," so long as they keep it under control.

While no one can deny that a sexual atmosphere of any kind is inappropriate for the seminary, this does not negate the fact that so-called "SSA" is intrinsically disordered (and usually a sign of deeper disorder) while "heterosexuality" (as in attraction to the opposite sex) in itself is not.

While a straight man who is sexually active, or unable to control his sexual behavior, is not a good candidate for the priesthood, if a man is attracted to the opposite sex, this is a sign that he is sound and normal in this regards, while "SSA" is a disorder.

And the fact that the author states that "misogyny and homophobia would all be signs that someone could not be a good model of Christ" is a good warning sign that the author has a p.c. lib agenda, as these words, as commonly used, mean nothing more than an opposition to homosexuality and feminism.

[PadreSantiago]

I would absolutely luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuv to hear your thoughts on feminism Socrates!

[Fidei Defensor]

I dont think it really matters what any of us think, because this document has been approved by the Pope, and Rome will ordain Priests accordingly. If they feel that in certain cases, men who, by the grace of God, have grasped control over their "SSA" issues are fit to become priests, then I dont think we are in a place to argue with them.