The National Catholic Reporter Distorter has sent a note of condolence to homosexual clergy on the occasion of the Vatican instruction about the ordination of homosexuals.
"To all those in positions of leadership in the Roman Catholic church [sic] who also happen to be homosexual, we offer our commiseration and sorrow that once again you have been forced to hear your sexuality, an element intrinsic to your humanity, described as an objective disorder.
"This time the phrase appears in the document with the ridiculously unwieldy title: ‘Instruction concerning the criteria of vocational discernment regarding persons with homosexual tendencies, considering their admission to seminary and to Holy Orders.’ In other words, the document on gays and seminaries.
"The description is repugnant, of course, to all those in the church [sic], gay and straight, who understand that homosexuality is, in the overwhelming number of cases, not a chosen orientation but as essential a part of one’s nature as heterosexuality is for others."
(Nod to Envoy Encore for the link.)
It’s interesting that, whenever dissident Catholics come across a document that plainly says things they don’t like, they immediately claim that it is “confusing”.
IN this case they claim that latest Vatican Instruction on the ordination of homosexual clergy is “puzzling” and “unclear”.
I can only believe it is because they have not yet found a way to parse the document so as to result in an interpretation that is 180 degrees opposite to the clear meaning of the text.
In my opinion, the document went as far as possible toward declaring “homosexual persons shall not be ordained in the Catholic Church”, while still leaving room for the ordinary, transient failings associated with youthful ignorance.
This “letter of condolence” is typical of the psuedo-intellectual dishonesty we can expect from fake Catholics who abhor the teachings and traditions of the Church (and despise Her new pope). Every Catholic needs to fight back against these lies with everything they’ve got. The most important lie we need to tell the truth about is this one: “the suggestion that homosexuality was somehow responsible for the abuse of vulnerable boys and girls or for the complicity in criminal activity of some occupying the most significant positions of authority is not only insulting to homosexuals, but way off the mark,” Oh Yeah? If that’s really the case, then why did the John Jay Report confirm that the vast majority of sex abuse cases involved priests preying upon ADOLESCENT MALES? Even most of the bishops (likely because so many are homosexuals themselves) keep chanting the mantra of “sexual abuse of children” to keep the light from hitting the REAL problem.
The author did get one thing right: “We know that homosexuals have had powerful ministsries within the Church.” Actually, the writer says “faithful” too, but that’s utter nonsense. The sheer power of their “ministries” can be found with the gatekeepers of many seminaries who screen out normal males as “too rigid” and have forced a new term into the seminarians lexicon: “I submarined my way through seminary” which means, “I hid the fact that I was a straight male and an orthodox Catholic so I could be ordained.”
I am NOT grateful for the homosexual priests who have had the “courage” to stay, because they have nearly ruined our Church. They are responsible for the watered down sermons, the lack of catechesis, the liturgical abuses, the inclusive language, the hatred of Latin and the ugly newer “churches” (or “worship spaces”) we are forced to sit in for Mass. They have had an agenda of changing the very faith because if they really believed in what the Church teaches, they would have to take a hard look at their own lives. No Catholic can expect a homosexual priest to have the courage to preach the fullness of the faith, not when everything within that priest’s presonality rejects the teachings of the Church regarding sexual morality. Every Catholic should denounce the “courageous” priests starting to “come out” for what they are REALLY doing: Making a transparent appeal for public sympathy. If a priest truly had courage, he would preach from the pulpit what the Church actually has to say about homosexuality and show how the hackneyed allegations of “hate” simply do not hold water. But we should know by now that any priest who does that would be shunned by his fellow clergy and probably suspended by his bishop. How sad that the priests and seminarians in the Catholic Church cannot proclaim their Catholic faith, but have to hide what they believe in order to appease the homo-facist cabal that is running the show…not that I have any opinion on the subject.
Really, Witchhunter.
As you note, the NCR article says: “We know that homosexuals have had powerful and faithful ministries in the church, have contributed in major ways as writers and musicians, artists and liturgists, preachers and activists.”
Do you *really* want to deny that categorically? Do you *really* want to assert that there are no homosexual priests with powerful and *faithful* ministries? The whole tenor of your post suggests that you do.
You write:
“No Catholic can expect a homosexual priest to have the courage to preach the fullness of the faith, not when everything within that priest’s presonality rejects the teachings of the Church regarding sexual morality.”
Has it not occurred to you that there are faithful, orthodox, SSA priests who accept Church teaching on sexuality and are willing both to live and to teach it? Surely Catholics can reasonably trust such priests.
Just to be clear, I’m reading both the NCR and you to be more or less equating “homosexual” and “SSA.” If you’re *not* making that equation, perhaps you could clarify what you mean by “homosexual”?
“…an element intrinsic to your humanity…”
Wow. That is quite a dogmatic statement. No wonder they don’t like the pope–he’s competition!
I can’t give you an ironclad definition, Sister, but I can tell you that anyone with SSA to the extent that they would describe themselves as “homosexual” would be unfit for ordination under the new instruction.
There is room to say, “Yes I have had experiences in the past (before I knew better), or have had fleeting temptations, but I wouldn’t describe myself as homosexual.”. The possibility of ordination should remain open for such a person.
The dissidents tip their hand, one moment insisting (as in the article) that a persons homosexuality is an “essential part of one’s nature”, and then insisting that it really is only a minor aspect of ones character, and really has no impact on the duties of the priestly life.
Which is it?
The dissidents tip their hand, one moment insisting (as in the article) that a persons homosexuality is an “essential part of one’s nature”, and then insisting that it really is only a minor aspect of ones character, and really has no impact on the duties of the priestly life.
Which is it?
Good point. My only concern is how this stirs up the hornets nest. I was content to let this aging dissent fad to die of idea starvation.
Witchunter,
Why chose a nom de bog that reminds us of some of the most shameful and disgraceful incidents in Christian history? An incident that involved the torture and murder of a huge number of presumably innocent women (since admissions under torture mean nothing to any reasonable, honest judge of fact). Perhaps you are, either consciously or unconsciously, reminding us of the disgraceful nature of the prohibition under discussion.
Patrick-
The whole witch hunt episode was more of a Protestant phenomenon.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I personally feel comfortable admitting that the new guidelines will probably exclude at least some men who could/would have become good priests.
THIS DOESN’T MAKE THEM AUTOMATICALLY A BAD IDEA.
If I understand correctly, the faithful do not have a “right” to ordination, the way they do to baptism, reconciliation, the eucharist, and anointing of the sick. The result is that if there are good enough reasons for it the Church can just say that certain classes of people are barred from ordination.
Like married people.
Now of course, saying that the Church MAY bar a group does not mean that doing so is a good idea. That’s another question. But given the current push for acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle in our culture, it seems reasonable to me that the Church would want to send a serious message about its teaching– that the desire to live such a lifestyle is not sinful but it IS a serious problem that affects many aspects of one’s life and personality.
I wish there were a way that faithful, celibate men who experience homosexual desires could be ordained without tacitly endorsing those desires to society. In the past that was possible; hopefully in the future it will be again. But I think the current policy can be said to be making the best of a bad situation. It’s more important that the Church is able to clearly articulate God’s truth to the world than it is that we snap up each and every possible man as a priest.
My prayer will be that men who desire the priesthood and are barred from it by the new guidelines will be able to live happy and holy lives of service to God and church in another way.
Dear Tim,
Unfortunately it was not merely protestants. At Salem it was a protestant issue but in the spirit of Christian fellowship they used a textbook prepared by two thoughtful sixteenth century German Dominicans entitled “Malleus Maleficarum.” In it the authors describe their persecution of women in a two square mile area of Germany where they managed to get confessions, under torture, from over a hundred women. It was part of a large scale and systematic European Catholic witch hunt which made Salem look very petty by comparison.
If anyone is interested “Malleus Maleficarum” is still in print in Latin and English, but it is a very disturbing book to put it mildly.
I wasn’t really thinking about Salem, but about Reformation centers in Europe, where the witch-hunts blossomed.
I’m certainly not claiming innocence on the part of Catholic clergy of the same period, but I think it was under the influence of the Reformation that the idea really took off.
The real issue in my mind is what will the laity do when they see another $2,000,000,00 needs to be paid out abuse claims.
As one famous person said: experince is a expensive school, but fools will learn in no other.
Until the laity demand no homosexuals are to be ordained, the lawsuits will not ever end.
“But a large majority of all those questioned by the Inquisition were completely cleared–as were St. Ignatius of Loyola and St. Teresa of Avila, and all so-called witches whose cases were brought before the Inquisition in the next century.” Warren Carroll, “Isabel of Spain, the Catholic Queen”, page 140.
The following bear repeating, I think.
1. Even if SSA isn’t “chosen,” that doesn’t mean its genetic or otherwise “inborn.”
2. Even if SSA is somehow genetic, that doesn’t mean it isn’t a disorder. There are such things as genetic (or otherwise inborn) disorders – certainly physical ones, and likely psychological ones too. (There may well be a genetic component to, e.g., depression.)
Patrick,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malleus_Maleficarum
This article seems to give a pretty balanced overview of the document and the Church’s view on it.
The article says the document was not approved by the Church.
…and once again, another graphic illustration of “value conflict theory.”
It’s fascinating to see how a name like “witchunter” can stir up so much angst! The reason I chose the name is because virtually every time there is any mention of dealing with homosexuality in the Church, the homo-facist cabal (HFC) cries out “No Witchunts!” If it gets to them that much, it must be good!
Seriously, the good sister from the Congregation for Societal Correction offers a serious question that deserves a serious answer. Obviously I could not possibly know every ordained priest, and in fairness to all the priests out there, I still believe that the majority of them are good men placed in a tough, thankless job. However, it only takes a few to spoil it for the rest of us. MY take on this comes from reading Michael Rose’s book and my own conversations (AND THERE HAVE BEEN QUITE A FEW) with priests and seminarians who have told me how they have to hide their orthodoxy and ignore decadence and perversion in the ranks. If there ARE homosexual or SSA priests who are orthodox and are willing to live that vocation out, I haven’t met one yet. If a priest is so caught up in his “gay” identity that he cannot separate it from being a priest, then something is seriously wrong. If you look at the priests and bishops who are really making a difference in the Church today, they are the kind who utterly reject the whole “gay” crusade and the misleading distortion of making homosexuality a “civil rights” issue–as if it were something to just accept and “celebrate”. Bishops like Olmstead, Bruskewicz, Sheridan and Chaput are too hungry for souls to waste their time on this kind of nonsense or tolerate it from their priests. So let me ask you: When you hear strong teachings against abortion, homosexuality and contraception, did it come from a homosexual priest? I mean the kind who has to make a public issue about “justice for Gays and Lesbians and Transexuals?” My guess is probably not. The few who dare to take such a stand are reviled as dinosaurs by the status quo. Example: If our bishops, in a united fashion, truly stood up publicly, using their authority, to oppose abortion, it would have made illegal shortly after the public disgrace of Roe V. Wade became a reality. Instead, they have wasted their time issuing vapid “position statements” on the role of the laity, the economy, the death penalty and virtually every other issue dear to “progressive Catholics.” Only a few have dared to exercise their authority and refuse Holy Communion to public advocates of abortion who play at being “Catholic”. Why? Because many of them have a serious, shall we say, masculinity crisis. Those who don’t aren’t yet willing to fight the lavender mafia that runs the show. Bishop Bruskewicz stood up at the bishop’s semi annual meeting a couple of years ago and said that they needed to deal with homosexuality in the priesthood and he was told to sit down. That’s the kind of corporate leadership we have right now in our U.S. episcopate.
The Inquisition was NOT a bad idea, even though a few misguided souls ran the wrong way with it. Whatever we’ve been doing for the last 30 years isn’t working.
As cold and callous as this sounds, it must be said, and I am not alone: I am sick and tired of seeing priests who are blatantly effeminate and doctrinally challenged running our parishes. These guys have done more harm than good. We have to demand high standards for our seminarians and priests. The vocations “crisis” will disappear when young boys see more masculine priests at the altar. It will disappear when priests can preach about EVERYTHING the Church teaches without fear of reprisals from the chancery. It will disappear when seminarians can go to bed at night without having to worry about being sodomized and can wake up and study St. Thomas Aquinas instead of Hans Kung. It will disappear when bishops recruit young men to engage in a life of spirtual combat instead of inviting them to work for “peace and justice”.
After all these words about what’s unfair to heterosexuals, let me say one thing about what’s fair to homosexuals: Doesn’t the Church exist to save our souls? If that’s the case, is it really fair or compassionate to ordain homosexuals to the priesthood? In a recent sermon, Fr. Corapi (one of the good guys) said this: “Placing a homosexual priest in a rectory is like placing a heterosexual priest in a convent.” Think about it.
As a recent convert from the Episcopal church, I rejoice that such a strong document was issued by the Church and that the above letter comes from a small dissident group. I assure you that the roles would have been reversed in the Episcopal church! I thank God daily (and sometimes more than that) that He led me Home to Rome.
“The description is repugnant, of course, to all those in the church [sic], gay and straight, who understand that homosexuality is, in the overwhelming number of cases, not a chosen orientation but as essential a part of one’s nature as heterosexuality is for others.”
One could say the same thing about alcoholism. But just because you were born that way or became that way, doesn’t mean you should continue freely exercising that trait and causing everyone around you to be miserable. Absolutely the best thing about an alcoholic is his sobriety
“The Inquisition was NOT a bad idea,…”
Witchunter, given the rest of your post your statement is not a surprise, just sad.
That was my posting.
OK Patrick: You’ve let us know you dislike the inquisition and witch hunts. Care to give us your take on ordaining homosexuals as priests?
OK Witchunter,
Since Jesus chose men as apostles* we only ordain men.
Since Jesus chose mostly married men as apostles we only (usually) ordain men who renounce marriage.
The only biblical advice on choosing bishops is to judge them by how they raise their children and manage their family life, so we only ordain bishops who are not married.
Now, after a mere two thousand years, we want to exclude celibate men who may think they have homosexual inclinations. Or better still, others may judge that they appear not masculine enough (or too masculine, or….). If a man is otherwise qualified for the priesthood and willing to live up to the current non scriptural demand to remain celibate, whatever he or someone else thinks are his sexual tendencies are should be irrelevant.
If anyone molests a child, that is what we have police and (real) judges for.
* Excluding for purposes of this discussion the women Jesus had sent as “apostles to the (unfortunately not too brave) apostles,” MT. 28:6-7 and Junias, ROM. 16:7.
“Since Jesus chose mostly married men as apostles. . .” Do we know this for certain? I thought the only one recorded as being married was Peter.
Early Christian writers state that Philip was married, and had 4 daughters,(although some say this was Philip the Deacon). We have zero evidence for the marital status of the other apostles.
“The only biblical advice on choosing bishops is to judge them by how they raise their children and manage their family life”, a reference to 1Timothy 3:2-7. It reads as follows: “NOW A BISHOP MUST BE ABOVE REPROACH, the husband of one wife, TEMPERATE, SENSIBLE, DIGNIFIED, HOSPITABLE, AN APT TEACHER, NO DRUNKARD, NOT VIOLENT BUT GENTLE, NOT QUARRELSOME, AND NO LOVER OF MONEY. HEMUST MANAGE HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD WELL, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every way; FOR IF A MAN DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO MANAGE HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD, HOW CAN HE CARE FOR GOD’S CHURCH? HE MUST NOT BE A RECENT CONVERT, OR HE MAY BE PUFFED UP WITH CONCEIT AND FALL INTO THE CONDEMNATION OF THE DEVIL; MOREOVER, HE MUST BE WELL THOUGHT OF BY OUTSIDERS, OR HE MAY FALL INTO REPROACH AND THE SNARE OF THE DEVIL.” I capitalized every part of that passage dealing with how to judge epicopal candidates that have nothing to do with being married. Patrick, I’m disappointed in you. You can do better than that. You’re throwing hanging curves.
Dear Bill912,
How about the letter of an eyewitness? Paul asks if only he and Barnabas “Do not we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas*?” 1 Cor. 9:5.
* Cephas=Peter.
Dear Billy,
How about an eyewitness? St. Paul asks “Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?” 1 Cor. 9:5. Cephas = Peter of course.
Patrick, which other apostles, besides Peter or Philip were married?
Dear Billy,
Paul says “the rest of the apostles.” sounds like all of the apostles. That is all we have from scripture as far as I know.
Does that mean all the apostles or all the rest of the apostles who have wives? I think either interpretation is defensible.
Dear Billy,
The actual text reads “loipoi apostoloi” (sorry I don’t have Greek fonts). Loipoi is a plural adjective and means “rest, remaining, other.” The plain meaning is the other apostles were married and traveling with their wives which is very nice and Christian!
“Plain meaning”? Sorry,don’t see it. Please drop the diminutive from my name.
bill, I am not sure what you are requesting.
Diminutive = Extremely small in size; tiny. Do you mean the polite Dear in front of your name? I assume that is what you intend and will comply.
Francis,
thanks for your thoughtful post—you raise some good questions about the prudence of ordaining faithful, celibate, SSA men at this point in time, and do so in a most charitable manner. I’m honestly not sure where I stand on the question myself, but you raise points well worth considering.
Witchunter, just to be clear, I’m not talking about ordaining the sort of person you describe, nor was I writing in defense of the NCR article. I was writing solely in response to your initial post, which seemed to be a blanket condemnation of homosexual clergy, blaming them for all sorts of problems in the Church. You also seemed to be equating “SSA” and “homosexual,” which is where my principal difficulty was.
You write: “If there ARE homosexual or SSA priests who are orthodox and are willing to live that vocation out, I haven’t met one yet.” Unless you’re a close personal friend, what are the odds that you’d know a priest’s orientation?
Finally, early on in your post, you write: “Seriously, the good sister from the Congregation for Societal Correction offers a serious question that deserves a serious answer.”
Please—I try to play nicely when I post to the combox. Perhaps I’m being overly sensitive, but I don’t appreciate the flippant way in which you refer to my congregation. For the record, it’s the Congregation of the Sisters of the Holy Cross. (And I’ll add the necessary disclaimer: any opinions I offer here are strictly my own; I do not speak on behalf of my community).
My apologies in advance for any delay in my response should you choose to respond to this message. I’m on my way out the door and am committed all day tomorrow, so I won’t have a chance to check posts until sometime late tomorrow evening.
Amy
Marriage is very good and is a sacrament but celibacy of the priests is the current discipline in the Catholic Church (latin rite). Jesus himself was celibate. Pope Benedict XVI reaffirmed recently this discipline.
“For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” (Mt 19:12, NIV)
Everybody here seems to be overlooking something: We are discussing priests in the CATHOLIC CHURCH. The last time I checked, the Church used the Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium as its sources of authority, but this has turned into an argument about whether or not we should ordain married men using “Sola Scriptura” as the ultimate measuring stick. Perhaps we should save such reasoning for the Protestant ministers. No one has yet been able to demonstrate how ordaining homosexuals is of any benefit to the Church. Further, no one forces men to give up marriage for the priesthood, it is a choice they are free to make. Likewise, the homosexuals in the priesthood knew what the Church teaches about homosexuality before they were ordained (if they didn’t then just WHAT WAS THEIR SEMINARY TEACHING?) My point is, no one is “betrayed” or “wounded” by the latest Vatican instruction. The “progressives” who can’t stop crying are mad about one thing: They thought they could change the Church and change the priesthood. They now know that they have lost. Their subversion is already over.
Everybody here seems to be overlooking something: We are discussing priests in the CATHOLIC CHURCH. The last time I checked, the Church used the Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium as its sources of authority, but this has turned into an argument about whether or not we should ordain married men using “Sola Scriptura” as the ultimate measuring stick. Perhaps we should save such reasoning for the Protestant ministers. No one has yet been able to demonstrate how ordaining homosexuals is of any benefit to the Church. Further, no one forces men to give up marriage for the priesthood, it is a choice they are free to make. Likewise, the homosexuals in the priesthood knew what the Church teaches about homosexuality before they were ordained (if they didn’t then just WHAT WAS THEIR SEMINARY TEACHING?) My point is, no one is “betrayed” or “wounded” by the latest Vatican instruction. The “progressives” who can’t stop crying are mad about one thing: They thought they could change the Church and change the priesthood. They now know that they have lost. Their subversion is already over.
I look at it this way: I’m a grown woman who finds men attractive. But I’m not married. And sex outside of marriage is a sin. So I’m celibate. It’s not always easy in this day and age (or any day and any age, I suppose).
So, my point is (and yes, there is one…) that these whiney priests and seminarians need to start acting like responsible Christians. If he wants to be a priest and be married, he needs to make a choice! (Or get married, become a deacon, and hope he outlives his wife so he can become a priest.) If he wants to be a priest but he also wants to fornicate (with either sex), he needs to decide whether to be a priest or a prostitute. At some point, ALL people need to realize that life and love are about more than sex and desire. And you really can’t have your sin and your sanctity in the same dish, either.
Blaming celibacy for the priest sex abuse scandal is like blaming marriage for adultery.
It’s very telling that if there is a problem with the breaking of some commandment, the dissenters want to ditch the commandment.
It’s like the old fable about the king that had a nearby cathedral torn down because it cast a shadow on his morning egg.
“Jesus himself was celibate.”
Really? Is there anything in the various sources (bible, tradition, any infallible statement) that says that directly? I could settle a lot of arguments if there was.
When I was at Dunwoodie (the New York Archdiocese’s Seminary) Msgr. John Sullivan used to tell us very regularly “You are leading unnatural lives.” He was right, of course. It is absurd to tie the burden of a clibrate life with the vocation the the priesthood.
“He said: ‘There are eunuchs born that way from their mother’s womb; there are eunuchs made by men; and there are eunuchs who have made themselves that way.’ Then He spoke of celibates who do not marry ‘for the sake of the Kingdom of God,’ finally giving away the secret of how men could be celibate. He called it a gift. He said that celibacy is not for everyone. It is only for those who receive from Him this gift. It is ‘only for those to whom it is granted. Let anyone accept this who can.’ He admitted all the difficulties inherent in weak humn nature, but then astounded them by saying that the initiative is on God’s side and the response is on ours. Celibacy is not something that a priest accomplishes and fulfills and lives through his own power….it is not man’s gift to God; it is God’s gift to man.” Archbishop Fulton Sheen, “Treasure In Clay”, page 203.
The married apostles’ wives had it notably hard. As Peter observed, “We have given up everything and followed you.”
Patrick on Jesus’ celibacy-
“Really? Is there anything in the various sources (bible, tradition, any infallible statement) that says that directly? I could settle a lot of arguments if there was.”
How about the CONSTANT tradition of the Church?
I am not following you. You want people to give you positive proof of a negative? You want us to logically RULE OUT a wife that is never mentioned by anyone?
Sorry, the burden of proof lies with you. Convince me. Show me any reasonable evidence that Jesus MIGHT have been married.
And if you mention Leonardo Da Vinci I’m going to throw a brick at my computer.
General comment on 1 Cor 9:5, I was listening to a Tim Staples tape and he had said something along the line of Paul was referring to a rabbinical tradition where the woman would tend to the household chores for the rabbi, but wasn’t necessarily his wife.
Tim, is it possible that Patrick was asking for a biblical straight-out statement of such and his arguments were thus with protestants where wuch a statement would be excellent and a tradition of the church not so? (though it should be, the authority of the church is plainly stated)
Oh, I actually want to read the Da Vinci code. Just see what ridiculous claims it makes so I can more easily argue against it if I have too.
While the apostles were married, with the exception of John ( the Beloved), when they followed Jesus they gave up their marital rights.
This has been the Traditional teaching of the Catholic Church.
As to the hungry trolls here who keep interjecting outrageous ideas into this thread, please folks, remember, do not feed them.