Bishop Clark to Homosexual Priests: "We Deeply Value Your Ministry"

[contemplative]

Furthermore what is ‘gay’?

Bishop Clark quotes:

• to gay young men who are considering a vocation to priesthood. We try to treat all inquiries fairly. You will be no exception.

Karl Keating’s October 18 E-Letter quotes:

By “homosexual” I mean someone who suffers from same-sex attraction. By “gay” I mean a homosexual who endorses and lives the “gay lifestyle.” “Homosexual” is a neutral term, “gay” a political term. Gay activists want everyone to equate the two; they want everyone to think that all homosexuals are gays. But that isn’t the case. All gays are homosexuals, but not all homosexuals are gays…

Consider, for example, the members of the Catholic support group Courage. They are homosexuals who are trying to live chastely, according to the Church’s teaching. Many of them once lived the gay lifestyle, and all of them are trying to live apart from it now. I think it makes sense to say the members of Courage are homosexuals but not gays.

So why is Bishop Clark who is so eloquent and articulate with words using the word ‘gay’ ? If Bishop Clark really knows what ‘gay’ is then why say

• to gay young men who are considering a vocation to priesthood. We try to treat all inquiries fairly. You will be no exception.

This sounds like an invitation for trouble. Go ahead and tell me if I am wrong. I have been known to be wrong many times.

 

[st.jerome]

Brad:

That does not make them a homosexual. That means they have a disorderd attraction.

Good point. However, I would modify my own point: a grave disorder is not grounds for smearing anyone’s name. One can point to displays of pride and vanity without poking fun at somebody’s shortcomings.

 

[Brad]

st.jerome:

Good point. However, I would modify my own point: a grave disorder is not grounds for smearing anyone’s name. One can point to acts such as pride and vanity without poking fun at somebody’s shortcomings.

Agreed. But calling somebody something that they are not is unkind at minimum. In this case, there is a question whether the person had any attraction toward the same sex. That is problem #1. Problem #2 is that even if he did, his entire person should not be labeled as homosexual. It detracts from his dignity of personhood which comes from being made in the image and likeness of God. Out of this dignity, it is apparent that Fr. Judge performed heroic deeds. Any hero should rightfully be remembered for his heroic deeds, not his shortcomings.

 

[contemplative]

st.jerome:

Good point. However, I would modify my own point: a grave disorder is not grounds for smearing anyone’s name. One can point to displays of pride and vanity without poking fun at somebody’s shortcomings.

Would discuss the matter of Fr. Judge on another thread and stick to the topic.

 

[Arba_Sicula]

Other Eric:

To call a man a homosexual is a smear.

Only if it is meant to be a smear. Those who said that he was a homosexual meant it very positively - that he was a homosexual and was a hero. For homosexuals, it would be a point of pride.

I reserve judgment on what his sexual orientation was, and I think it of no consequence to his heroism.

 

[contemplative]

Please stick to the topic of discussion.

 

[Brad]

Arba Sicula:

Only if it is meant to be a smear. Those who said that he was a homosexual meant it very positively - that he was a homosexual and was a hero. For homosexuals, it would be a point of pride.

Can white men take is as a point of pride that he was a white male? Or should that not be relevant? I believe content of character is of much higher priority, no?

 

[contemplative]

Brad:

Can white men take is as a point of pride that he was a white male? Or should that not be relevant? I believe content of character is of much higher priority, no?

What does this have to do with the topic of this thread

 

[Brad]

contemplative:

What does this have to do with the topic of this thread

Promotion of the homosexual agenda comes from many different sources. I am an equal opportunity opponent of the homosexual agenda. I didn’t bring up the “secondary” topic but since it was raised, I obliged.

 

[contemplative]

Brad:

Promotion of the homosexual agenda comes from many different sources. I am an equal opportunity opponent of the homosexual agenda. I didn’t bring up the “secondary” topic but since it was raised, I obliged.

When I start a thread I need to start recognizing these ‘secondary’ topics and nip them in the bud…what a mess of stuff they cause…absolute havoc…if I could go back and erase on the secondary stuff I would. One must be on 24 hours a day to keep it in check…impossible!

 

[Libero]

To call a man a homosexual is a smear.

How can the church ever expect homosexuals to folow teachings if attitudes such as this are expressed. In order to overcome this objective disorder a homosexual would have to accept it and come to terms with it, and then learn to adapt to it. Part of the problem for homosexuals who may have followed the church teachings is that people consider homosexuality a smear, or negative, despite how you choose to engage with it.

I would consider the Bishops document a positive progress. The reason why he may have included a quote to the seminary investigation is because homosexuals may feel that it is only them - or their orientation - being investigated, this certainly seemed to be suggested on these forums when news of the seminary investigation first arose. Some may have taken offence at the investigation, as it could imply that it is only homosexuality the church officials are concerned with.

I have used specific language here, many "could"s "may"s and "some"s. I am not generallising please dont misunderstand.

 

[Brad]

contemplative:

When I start a thread I need to start recognizing these ‘secondary’ topics and nip them in the bud…what a mess of stuff they cause…absolute havoc…if I could go back and erase on the secondary stuff I would. One must be on 24 hours a day to keep it in check…impossible!

I agree it does cause confusion. But because I cannot erase them and all can read them, I sometimes find it useful to address them (using prudential judgement).

 

[Brad]

Libero:

I would consider the Bishops document a positive progress. The reason why he may have included a quote to the seminary investigation is because homosexuals may feel that it is only them - or their orientation - being investigated, this certainly seemed to be suggested on these forums when news of the seminary investigation first arose. Some may have taken offence at the investigation, as it could imply that it is only homosexuality the church officials are concerned with.

They shouldn’t have any concern if they are chaste. I am sure chaste seminarians that do not promote homosexual behavior or teach in violation of the magisterium will have nothing to worry about. However, if they are not chaste and/or teach contrary to the Church, then they should have cause for concern.

Proclaiming concern about a Vatican document as if it very well will be “wrong” is not a good start for those concerned or those potentially hiding anything. Anyone who is chaste and wants to conform their lives in obedience to the Magisterium of the Church should have no fear of a Vatican document.

 

[miguel]

Brad:

Agreed. But calling somebody something that they are not is unkind at minimum. In this case, there is a question whether the person had any attraction toward the same sex. That is problem #1. Problem #2 is that even if he did, his entire person should not be labeled as homosexual. It detracts from his dignity of personhood which comes from being made in the image and likeness of God. Out of this dignity, it is apparent that Fr. Judge performed heroic deeds. Any hero should rightfully be remembered for his heroic deeds, not his shortcomings.

Yes. Homosexual is an adjective, not a noun.

 

[contemplative]

Brad:

They shouldn’t have any concern if they are chaste. I am sure chaste seminarians that do not promote homosexual behavior or teach in violation of the magisterium will have nothing to worry about. However, if they are not chaste and/or teach contrary to the Church, then they should have cause for concern.

Proclaiming concern about a Vatican document as if it very well will be “wrong” is not a good start for those concerned or those potentially hiding anything. Anyone who is chaste and wants to conform their lives in obedience to the Magisterium of the Church should have no fear of a Vatican document.

Your thoughts are well and good.
I am wondering about the terminology in the Bishops article.

Bishop Clark quotes:

• to gay young men who are considering a vocation to priesthood. We try to treat all inquiries fairly. You will be no exception.

Karl Keating’s October 18 E-Letter quotes:

By “homosexual” I mean someone who suffers from same-sex attraction. By “gay” I mean a homosexual who endorses and lives the “gay lifestyle.” “Homosexual” is a neutral term, “gay” a political term. Gay activists want everyone to equate the two; they want everyone to think that all homosexuals are gays. But that isn’t the case. All gays are homosexuals, but not all homosexuals are gays…

Consider, for example, the members of the Catholic support group Courage. They are homosexuals who are trying to live chastely, according to the Church’s teaching. Many of them once lived the gay lifestyle, and all of them are trying to live apart from it now. I think it makes sense to say the members of Courage are homosexuals but not gays.

So why is Bishop Clark who is so eloquent and articulate with words using the word ‘gay’ ? Assuming that Bishop Clark really knows what ‘gay’ is then why say

Quote:

• to gay young men who are considering a vocation to priesthood. We try to treat all inquiries fairly. You will be no exception.

This sounds like an invitation for trouble.

 

[Libero]

So why is Bishop Clark who is so eloquent and articulate with words using the word ‘gay’ ? Assuming that Bishop Clark really knows what ‘gay’ is then why say

Im not so sure about that, perhaps the bishop is just using the dictionary definition, rather than one that has been proposed by someone, and not accepted as a real definition. Many would think of homosexual as being very technical and impersonal, making it seem more like a detestable disease, not as if there is a person behind it. Dictionay definition:

Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.

It is the same reason for a person saying “I’m straight” rather than “Im heterosexual”, or any other terms.

They shouldn’t have any concern if they are chaste. I am sure chaste seminarians that do not promote homosexual behavior or teach in violation of the magisterium will have nothing to worry about. However, if they are not chaste and/or teach contrary to the Church, then they should have cause for concern.

Proclaiming concern about a Vatican document as if it very well will be “wrong” is not a good start for those concerned or those potentially hiding anything. Anyone who is chaste and wants to conform their lives in obedience to the Magisterium of the Church should have no fear of a Vatican document.

I agree with many of the points here, however thereis concern that chaste homosexuals may be denied into priesthood etc, isn’t there. Perhaps, rather than being afraid of the document being wrong, they are just concerned that a document will not truly reflect the realism of the church, that some homosexuals, whist having caused problems, many have been brilliant priests, maybe there is concern this may not be seen or reflected.

 

[contemplative]

Furthermore clearly Bishop Clark understands the difference between homosexual and gay.

I hope that these comments will be helpful to:

• homosexual priests who spend themselves each day in faithful, loving ministry to God’s holy people. We deeply value your ministry.

• to gay young men who are considering a vocation to priesthood. We try to treat all inquiries fairly. You will be no exception.

• to all who may have been confused or misled by premature and narrow reporting of the visitation and rumored document. It is always better to deal with fact than with rumor and half-truths.

 

[Brad]

contemplative:

This sounds like an invitation for trouble.

I agree. He should not use the term, nor should he preempt a Vatican document that may not allow those with a homosexual orientation become priests with his own possible pre-acceptance of them into the priesthood. He should wait for the document and be obedient to it’s instruction.

On a side note, I don’t even agree with Keating on saying that those in Courage should be called homosexual. This gives credibility to a disorder that they are working to escape. They can say they struggle with SSA as an alternative. You should never be defined by that which moves you to potential evil. You should be defined by the goodness in which you were created by God.

 

[miguel]

contemplative:

So why is Bishop Clark who is so eloquent and articulate with words using the word ‘gay’ ?

This is the $64000 question. Wanderer readers have known about Bishop Clark and his antics for years…way before the sex abuse scandal broke.

 

[contemplative]

Brad:

On a side note, I don’t even agree with Keating on saying that those in Courage should be called homosexual. This gives credibility to a disorder that they are working to escape. They can say they struggle with SSA as an alternative. You should never be defined by that which moves you to potential evil. You should be defined by the goodness in which you were created by God.

Better yet! Amen

Remember too Karl’s main idea was to distinguish how the two are used intermittedly…