Don’t dare to speak its name

[MikeWM]

Excellent article in this weeks Tablet:

thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-01084

The long-awaited Vatican document on homosexuality and the priesthood is expected to be released soon. The signs are that, while it may please a few in the Church, it could cause acute distress to many gay priests who are faithful to their vows of celibacy

…

Finally, a document like the one Archbishop O’Brien predicts would in effect say to gay priests: you should never have been ordained. It would further demoralise a cohort of priests already burdened by the vilification they received in the wake of the abuse crisis. The proposed document would also contradict two positions clearly enunciated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Mike

 

[Pete2]

Mike, thanks for sharing that article. I find it very disturbing…this is evil working in the Church. This quote sums up the article for me:

His blunt comments reveal what many priests have long feared: blame for that clerical crisis is being placed squarely on the shoulders of celibate gay men in the priesthood rather than on the bishops who moved paedophile priests away from the scene of their assaults to new locations where they struck again, abusing more children.

Pete

 

[mercygate]

MikeWM:

Excellent article in this weeks Tablet:

thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/register.cgi/tablet-01084

The long-awaited Vatican document on homosexuality and the priesthood is expected to be released soon. The signs are that, while it may please a few in the Church, it could cause acute distress to many gay priests who are faithful to their vows of celibacy

…

Finally, a document like the one Archbishop O’Brien predicts would in effect say to gay priests: you should never have been ordained. It would further demoralise a cohort of priests already burdened by the vilification they received in the wake of the abuse crisis. The proposed document would also contradict two positions clearly enunciated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Mike

From this article:

His blunt comments reveal what many priests have long feared: blame for that clerical crisis is being placed squarely on the shoulders of celibate gay men in the priesthood rather than on the bishops who moved paedophile priests away from the scene of their assaults to new locations where they struck again, abusing more children.

The John Jay report indicated that 80% of the abuse cases were against priests who had targeted adolescent boys, not girls, not children of either gender: Post-pubescent boys.

Celibates are not blamed for anything. People who have not been celibate have created the problem. (Duh!)

The bishops have much to answer for in moving offenders from place to place, but if the offenders had not offended in the first place, the bishops would not have been placed in the position of having to deal with them. Shifting the blame to the bishops takes the spotlight off the perpetrators. Often those who were moved were deemed to have been “cured” by a course of therapy mandated by their superiors – at least after the first treatment period. After that, the bishops are more culpable.

The Church does not label as “gay” anybody who is not acting on his SSA impulses. The word “gay” is reserved to those who practice the gay lifestyle and who advocate for it. A faithful Priest is a faithful Priest. How would anybody know what his sexual proclivities are if he hasn’t made them known?

The *Tablet *article is speculative junk.

 

[Elizabeth_B]

My prayers are with the author of this article. As a chaste homosexual (admitted in the article) he is not entirely unbiased.

There are many non sequiters in the article with which I disagree. For example, his statements that prohibitting the ordination of homosexuals is contrary to the Catechism and will also further reduce the number priests include leaps in logic. I think that a return to orthodoxy and the restoration of the dignity of the priesthood will result in an increase in vocations.

 

[mlchance]

Finally, a document like the one Archbishop O’Brien predicts would in effect say to gay priests: you should never have been ordained. It would further demoralise a cohort of priests already burdened by the vilification they received in the wake of the abuse crisis. The proposed document would also contradict two positions clearly enunciated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Nonsense.

It has been Church policy to not ordain gay men since at least the 1960s. There is no contradiction between reinforcing this already existing policy and any teaching of the Church…except, perhaps, in the minds of people who think ordination is a right.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Libero]

I think that the author has a good message, and clearly good reason for writing the article, however he goes about this in the wrong manner. He does not fully look at the churches motives and also exaggerates slightly.

 

[MikeWM]

My response : of course ordination isn’t a right - but I don’t agree with a total bar on homosexual people being ordained to the priesthood. Priests are called to chastity, not ‘chastity from the right type of sexual feelings’. Those assessing for the suitability of a priest should be judging whether he can remain chaste, not whether he would be having a certain type of relationship if he wasn’t chaste.

I agree with the author of the article to this extent - the Catechism calls homosexual people to chastity. This move implies to me that the Catholic Church believes homosexual people can’t be trusted to be chaste. That is a contradiction.

While I have difficulty with some Church teaching, it all makes sense to me, and I’m happy to try to explain it to others. But I can’t justify this even to myself - how can I possibly justify this to my (non-Catholic) friends who say the Catholic Church is unfair to homosexuals as it is?

As for the fact that this has been a (largely unused) policy in place since the 1960s - then the author of the article’s fears are already coming true. People who are happy with that must be mulling the fact already that current homosexual priests should never have been ordained As for the ‘who will know’ comment, well the person in the seminary himself would know. Why should he have to either lie (hardly a good start to being a priest) or give up his calling?

I’m very sad that the Church has decided to make this reactionary move. One of the wonderful characteristics of the Church is that it usually isn’t reactionary at all.

Mike

 

[mlchance]

MikeWM:

I agree with the author of the article to this extent - the Catechism calls homosexual people to chastity. This move implies to me that the Catholic Church believes homosexual people can’t be trusted to be chaste. That is a contradiction.

Only if your inference is correct, which it isn’t. No one in the Church is saying that homosexuals can’t be ordained priests because homosexuals cannot remain chaste. The Church instead is saying homosexual cannot be ordained priests because they are homosexuals.

Therefore, there is no contradiction. Furthermore, since ordination isn’t a right, there is no unjust discrimination either. The Church, not the individual, decides whose call to priestly vocation is authentic.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Apostle_X]

This is GREAT NEWS! Gays shouldn’t be allowed to be priests. I am in favor of this 100%. It’s about time, too. Pope Benedict XVI is doing a great job so far.

Your Holiness, keep up the good conservative work.

 

[MikeWM]

mlchance:

Only if your inference is correct, which it isn’t. No one in the Church is saying that homosexuals can’t be ordained priests because homosexuals cannot remain chaste. The Church instead is saying homosexual cannot be ordained priests because they are homosexuals.

Therefore, there is no contradiction. Furthermore, since ordination isn’t a right, there is no unjust discrimination either. The Church, not the individual, decides whose call to priestly vocation is authentic.

I understand that this is a perfectly valid interpretation - but where on earth comes the idea that you can’t be a priest if you are a homosexual? The only thing that has anything to do with sex in being a priest is chastity, and homosexuals are just as capable of being chaste as heterosexuals.

So - what makes a chaste homosexual not be a good priest, per se?

Mike

 

[mlchance]

MikeWM:

I understand that this is a perfectly valid interpretation -

Which pretty much ends the argument.

MikeWM:

but where on earth comes the idea that you can’t be a priest if you are a homosexual?

From the Church, who has the authority to determine such things.

MikeWM:

The only thing that has anything to do with sex in being a priest is chastity…

Untrue.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[MikeWM]

mlchance:

From the Church, who has the authority to determine such things.

The Church gives reasons too, usually. What are they in this case? or given the document hasn’t been published yet, what would your reasons be?

Untrue.

Does it make a jot of difference if the priest while giving his homily, looking at the family in the front pew, has the briefest of thoughts that the husband is attractive instead of the wife?

Mike

 

[mlchance]

MikeWM:

The Church gives reasons too, usually. What are they in this case? or given the document hasn’t been published yet, what would your reasons be?

My reasons aren’t the issue. Rather than speculate beyond the scope of my expertise and authority, exercising a mind muscle-bound with suspicion from jumping to conclusions (as does the author of the linked article), I prefer to wait for the Church to speak for herself.

MikeWM:

Does it make a jot of difference if the priest while giving his homily, looking at the family in the front pew, has the briefest of thoughts that the husband is attractive instead of the wife?

Irrelevancy now added to bogus implication and the untrue statement that “[t]he only thing that has anything to do with sex in being a priest is chastity.”

Why the rush to condemn something that hasn’t been made public? Why so quick to assume the Church is wrong?

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Robert_Bay]

Holy Orders is a sacrament. Moving to appropriate forum.

 

[MikeWM]

mlchance:

My reasons aren’t the issue. Rather than speculate beyond the scope of my expertise and authority, exercising a mind muscle-bound with suspicion from jumping to conclusions (as does the author of the linked article), I prefer to wait for the Church to speak for herself.

In that case how can you say

No one in the Church is saying that homosexuals can’t be ordained priests because homosexuals cannot remain chaste. The Church instead is saying homosexual cannot be ordained priests because they are homosexuals.

It sounds like you’ve reached some conclusions yourself already.

Irrelevancy now added to bogus implication and the untrue statement that “[t]he only thing that has anything to do with sex in being a priest is chastity.”

Why? What else is there? If you’re a priest, you don’t have sex (because you’re not married). Seems simple enough to me.

Why the rush to condemn something that hasn’t been made public?

Why the rush of so many to applaud and say ‘wonderful’? Have you condemned them for rushing?

Why so quick to assume the Church is wrong?

Because I feel in my mind and my heart that this is a bad decision, and it pains me because I haven’t felt that about anything the Church has done since I returned to my faith.

Mike

 

[Pete2]

MikeWM:

Why? What else is there? If you’re a priest, you don’t have sex (because you’re not married). Seems simple enough to me.

You are referring to celibacy. Chastity is something else. But either way, it doesn’t detract from your argument. A man who suffers from the temptation of same sex attraction can live up to the vows of a priest just as well as a man who suffers from the temptation of opposite sex attraction.

Although no one has seen the document, the speculation is that the Church will say, vaguely, that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, and therefore a homosexual isn’t good enough to be a priest. To this I say, if a homosexual who embraces chastity is good enough for God, then why can’t that same person be good enough to serve the Church as a priest?

Pete

 

[MikeWM]

Pete2:

You are referring to celibacy. Chastity is something else.

Oh flip, yes That’s like the way I always say ‘Assumption’ when I mean ‘Annunciation’

But either way, it doesn’t detract from your argument. A man who suffers from the temptation of same sex attraction can live up to the vows of a priest just as well as a man who suffers from the temptation of opposite sex attraction.

Although no one has seen the document, the speculation is that the Church will say, vaguely, that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, and therefore a homosexual isn’t good enough to be a priest. To this I say, if a homosexual who embraces chastity is good enough for God, then why can’t that same person be good enough to serve the Church as a priest?

And what about the people who are homosexual priests right now? Are we supposed to look on them as second-class priests until they retire? A stain on the priesthood to be put up with for a little bit until they pass?

Mike

 

[mlchance]

MikeWM:

It sounds like you’ve reached some conclusions yourself already.

Have you read anything from the Church saying homosexuals can’t be priests because homosexuals cannot remain chaste? I haven’t. What I’ve read hints at the Church stating that the condition of homosexuality itself is a disqualifier for ordination, regardless of the would-be priest’s chastity.

MikeWM:

Why? What else is there? If you’re a priest, you don’t have sex (because you’re not married). Seems simple enough to me.

Anything seems simple if one doesn’t look at the whole picture. Again you said: “The only thing that has anything to do with sex in being a priest is chastity.”

This isn’t true. Another important thing to do with sex is that priest must be male. So, there’s two things (at least).

Also, the only criterion for being a priest isn’t celibacy and chastity (which are two different issues). Some priests, for example, aren’t celibate; they are married.

Thus, there’s more to the picture than just sex. A would-be priest must have an authentic vocation for priestly life. This falls under the Church’s authority.

For example, the Church could decide tomorrow to forbid all ordinations of married men. Would this be discrimination against married men? Of course not, because, as you’ve admitted, ordination is not a right.

MikeWM:

Why the rush of so many to applaud and say ‘wonderful’?

Got me. Ask them.

MikeWM:

Have you condemned them for rushing?

Would it make you feel better if I did? Would it in anyway alter the substance of what I’ve said if I didn’t?

MikeWM:

Because I feel in my mind and my heart that this is a bad decision, and it pains me because I haven’t felt that about anything the Church has done since I returned to my faith.

But you’ve made this judgment based on incomplete information. Interesting that despite this the conclusion is: The Church is wrong.

During the controversies surrounding the elevation of the Assumption to the level of dogma, a questionairre was circulated among Catholic theological faculties. All of Benedict XVI’s professors objected to the proposed dogma.

One of these professors was publically challenged by a Lutheran theologican. The Lutheran basically asked, “If this dogma, which is wrong, is proclaimed, will you leave the Church?”

Benedict XVI’s professor responding (I paraphrase): “No, I will not. If the dogma is proclaimed, I will instead trust that the Church is more wise than I.”

This so-called “new policy” against ordaining homosexual men certainly isn’t on the level of dogma (it being an “Instruction”), so you are free to disagree so long as you aren’t in a position to put your disagreement into effect.

But why not trust that the Church is more wise than you are?

MikeWM:

And what about the people who are homosexual priests right now? Are we supposed to look on them as second-class priests until they retire? A stain on the priesthood to be put up with for a little bit until they pass?

According to advanced press, such priests will remain priests. The rest of your questions are simply absurd and do nothing to further understanding of the Church’s position.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Pete2]

MikeWM:

And what about the people who are homosexual priests right now? Are we supposed to look on them as second-class priests until they retire? A stain on the priesthood to be put up with for a little bit until they pass?

Mike

Don’t know. It would be a sin if that were the case. The Church clearly states in the CCC that homosexuals are not to be treated as second class citizens: “Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.”

Pete

 

[MikeWM]

mlchance:

Anything seems simple if one doesn’t look at the whole picture. Again you said: “The only thing that has anything to do with sex in being a priest is chastity.”

This isn’t true. Another important thing to do with sex is that priest must be male. So, there’s two things (at least).

That’s gender, not sex. I meant sex as in the action of having sex, not what sex you are.

Also, the only criterion for being a priest isn’t celibacy and chastity (which are two different issues).

Well, yes. I have an odd short-circuit in my mind over those words

For example, the Church could decide tomorrow to forbid all ordinations of married men. Would this be discrimination against married men? Of course not, because, as you’ve admitted, ordination is not a right.

I have no argument with discrimination for a good reason. There are all manner of reasons that women can’t be priests, ditto married people (married to the church, etc.)

But I haven’t heard one good reason I could use to justify to me or my friends as to why homosexuals can’t be priests.

During the controversies surrounding the elevation of the Assumption to the level of dogma, a questionairre was circulated among Catholic theological faculties. All of Benedict XVI’s professors objected to the proposed dogma.

The assumption is a difficult doctrine for me, but I’m willing to accept it. It’s not discriminatory in any way. If you’re going to discriminate, you have to have very good reasons. Now the Church, in my opinion, does have good reasons for why women can’t be priests. I don’t see any good reason for why homosexuals cannot be priests.

According to advanced press, such priests will remain priests. The rest of your questions are simply absurd and do nothing to further understanding of the Church’s position.

How are they absurd? If there are good reasons why homosexuals can’t become good priests, then they must apply to priests right now. There aren’t pre-2005 and post-2005 types of homosexuals, there are just homosexuals.

Mike