Effeminate Priests

[setter]

Originally Posted by Deo Volente
You would have us believe that the external gesture is solely representative of the internal person, but my argument is that the external gesture is not only culturally conditioned, but the interpretation of that gesture is culturally conditioned as well. It remains for us to tease apart the conditioned gesture from the gesture indicative of the person’s quality of being-in-the-world. And this process is not accomplished through mere observation, but through an evaluation of individual character, in which evaluation external gesture provides some evidence, but perhaps not the most reliable, and, in the end, perhaps not the most important.

Okay …

Your argument states that the external gesture is the sine qua non of character evaluation. I argue that it is not, because our performance and interpretation of the gesture relies on too too many conditioned and conditioning cultural impulses.

I never attempted to argue that an external gesture can be used to evaluate character.

I hope my two paragraphs above will give some indication as to my position here.

I try, I will not say I always succeed(!), but I try not confuse a sign with the thing it signifies.

(CONTINUED…)

I will say that your run on sentences are mouthful to digest and extract the bottom line.

 

[setter]

(…CONTINUED)
My whole point has been that you have put a lot of stock in the “this world” culture, conflating as you have social dictate with moral law.

I am getting that sneaky feeling that a tactic of your argumentation is to turn my argument/position on its head then point the finger back at me.

My whole point has been that social dictate/culture is tool, and as such, our evaluation of it’s value must be according to the degree to which it is useful, and a cultural value is useful only insofar as it **reveals reality **as it is. Unfortunately, culture is a blunt instrument and is not entirely accurate. Religion, however, is not a tool but a revelation–it purports to reveal the Real. And I believe with all of my heart that Christianity does this by showing us Jesus Christ who is the Real. Therefore, in interpreting such things as masculine and feminine, I am more inclined to believe that the truth of what masculine and feminine really mean is more to be found in their **religious sense **(from which they derive their meaning) than in their **cultural sense **which can only be a shadow of the truth. And when the prevailing culture denounces Christianity as weak and emasculating (as it does) because of the gospel of peace, because of the centrality of sacrifice to the nature of the Real, then I question that culture’s notions of strength and masculinity seeing as they have nothing to do with the Reality which defines the strong and the masculine.

And I question the opinions of those who seem to side with the prevailing culture on these and other matters. Which is why I am engaging in this conversation with you.

I do not agree with your framing of the argument. I believe that you are attempting to capture some of the essence of this paragraph from the CCC which I cited earlier:

**1886 **Society is essential to the fulfillment of the human vocation. To attain this aim, respect must be accorded to the just hierarchy of values, which “subordinates physical and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones:”

Human society must primarily be considered something pertaining to the spiritual. Through it, in the bright light of truth, men should share their knowledge, be able to exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations, be inspired to seek spiritual values; mutually derive genuine pleasure from the beautiful, of whatever order it be; always be readily disposed to pass on to others the best of their own cultural heritage; and eagerly strive to make their own the spiritual achievements of others. These benefits not only influence, but at the same time give aim and scope to all that has bearing on cultural expressions, economic, and social institutions, political movements and forms, laws, and all other structures by which society is outwardly established and constantly developed. (CCC)

I discern between the possession in potentiality and possession in actuality. That we are called to be one with Jesus Christ, that Jesus has himself accomplished this oneness in his person is a truth that is abiding. That Reality is what we really are. But if we are not living that truth (and insofar as we sin, we are not living that truth), when we turn away from what we really are, or if we identify ourselves with other things, with systems and laws and codes of behavior, then the Reality of Christ in us remains a present Reality that we have not fully realized.

Hence, the need for ongoing conversion and transformation in Jesus Christ. Back to my original point that an overly effeminate priest is walking and talking symptom manifestation of one who has a deformity, aberration, maladjustment, …in his psycho- and/or social development that falls short of the image and likeness of Christ the perfect man, “cultural dictates” aside, and creates a disconnect and distraction from the common man/woman sitting in the pew each Sunday.

Are you admitting here that masculinity as it is culturally defined is performed more than it is existential? If you are saying that Francis’ love (for instance) was dressed up in a masculine gesture, what then is the use of the masculine gesture if not as a vessel for the love which exceeds it in value? What then is the use of masculinity or femininity if not as vessels for one thing or another, one virtue, one grace or another? And if vessels, is not what they contain the more (name removed by moderator)ortant? And if what they contain is more important, does it not behoove us to judge the quality of the gesture by the virtue it is meant to convey? And if this is the case, are we not beling called to look beyond the gesture entirely, seeing as it is merely performance, not substance?

I hope you’re all having a wonderful Christmas.

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

My contention is that an overly effeminate priest is manifesting his internal disposition which the average, well-adjusted catholic in the pew each Sunday finds distracting and unable to connect more fully with, as in disconnect. Not that complicated really.

 

[setter]

The Church clearly teaches that the cultural expressions of a society are to be submisive to the “Reign of God”, of which natural [moral] law is the interior knowledge placed in each person to know what is good and right, what is properly ordered to the good and dignity of man. Any manifestation contrary or opposed thereof is an aberration and deviation. You are guilty of attempting to emancipate “the guidance of social dictate”, i.e., the prevailing cultural norms, apart from the “interior and spiritual” values which "subordinates physical and instinctual dimensions’ of society.

2820 By a discernment according to the Spirit, Christians have to distinguish between the growth of the Reign of God and the progress of the culture and society in which they are involved. This distinction is not a separation. Man’s vocation to eternal life does not suppress, but actually reinforces, his duty to put into action in this world the energies and means received from the Creator to serve justice and peace. (CCC)

1886 Society is essential to the fulfillment of the human vocation. To attain this aim, respect must be accorded to the just hierarchy of values, which “subordinates physical and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones:”

Human society must primarily be considered something pertaining to the spiritual. Through it, in the bright light of truth, men should share their knowledge, be able to exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations, be inspired to seek spiritual values; mutually derive genuine pleasure from the beautiful, of whatever order it be; always be readily disposed to pass on to others the best of their own cultural heritage; and eagerly strive to make their own the spiritual achievements of others. These benefits not only influence, but at the same time give aim and scope to all that has bearing on cultural expressions, economic, and social institutions, political movements and forms, laws, and all other structures by which society is outwardly established and constantly developed. (CCC)

You have arrived yourself at an erroneous interpretation and extrapolation of my position.

Okay …

Are suggesting that the norm for human behavior is a radical disconnect between the internal experience of a person and the external gestures displayed in any given cultural context?

 

[fix]

my point is that often is the operative word here. And when often is confused with always, there is a problem, and the problem is with the confusion.

No matter the source of the mannerisms their expression is troubling. It is at least a sign of significant immaturity. It is hardly extreme to think a representative of God in service to Him and the faithful should not be conforming to proper understanding of masculinity.

That expectation is largely conditioned, not always just, and not always reasonable.

No, it is not solely a conditioned response. This reminds me of all those modesty threads where folks mistakenly think modesty is simply culturally defined while ignoring the objective Gospel standard we must conform to. There is a subjective component, but there is also an objective component.

My point here was regarding priorities. It seems that it is a priority that a priest conform to a congregation’s conditioned notions of masculinity, otherwise, his congregation cannot receive his gifts.

A false conflict. The priest should be masculine as any man should be. The laity are not rejecting anything. They want a priest to be a priest. They are not asking for the impossible. Please see the link I provided again.

My point is that it is better to receive the gifts and worry about things worth worrying about. Granted, though, we have different notions of “bad conduct.” For you, the priest displays bad conduct in the controversial gesture, for me, the congregation displays bad conduct in their championing of their conditioning over the gifts of their priest.

Again, a false conflict. It is not an either/or situation. The expectation is for normalness, not extraordinariness.

My argument is that the congregation’s attitude is worse than the priest’s gesture–and that sometimes it seems like we (and I include myself here) are more interested in indulging our attitudes and our feelings of being offended or right than we are uninterested in feeding the poor. Or receiving Eucharist.

That would only be true if those offended had no authentic reason to be offended. Perhaps part of the problem is our conditioning is no longer coming from the Gospel, but from false notions of political and pop psychology correctness.

 

[fix]

Are suggesting that the norm for human behavior is a radical disconnect between the internal experience of a person and the external gestures displayed in any given cultural context?

That is a good point. Those that think the “norm” is some fluid, never ending, penumbra conclude that any abberrant expression is acceptable simply because it exists.The focus of the problem then becomes those who find it troubling rather than with those who express it.

 

[dapper]

I am getting that sneaky feeling that a tactic of your argumentation is to turn my argument/position on its head then point the finger back at me.

I do not agree with your framing of the argument. I believe that you are attempting to capture some of the essence of this paragraph from the CCC which I cited earlier:

**1886 **Society is essential to the fulfillment of the human vocation. To attain this aim, respect must be accorded to the just hierarchy of values, which “subordinates physical and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones:”

Human society must primarily be considered something pertaining to the spiritual. Through it, in the bright light of truth, men should share their knowledge, be able to exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations, be inspired to seek spiritual values; mutually derive genuine pleasure from the beautiful, of whatever order it be; always be readily disposed to pass on to others the best of their own cultural heritage; and eagerly strive to make their own the spiritual achievements of others. These benefits not only influence, but at the same time give aim and scope to all that has bearing on cultural expressions, economic, and social institutions, political movements and forms, laws, and all other structures by which society is outwardly established and constantly developed. (CCC)

Hence, the need for ongoing conversion and transformation in Jesus Christ. Back to my original point that an overly effeminate priest is walking and talking symptom manifestation of one who has a deformity, aberration, maladjustment, …in his psycho- and/or social development that falls short of the image and likeness of Christ the perfect man, “cultural dictates” aside, and creates a disconnect and distraction from the common man/woman sitting in the pew each Sunday.

My contention is that an overly effeminate priest is manifesting his internal disposition which the average, well-adjusted catholic in the pew each Sunday finds distracting and unable to connect more fully with, as in disconnect. Not that complicated really.

Setter, here are two quotes from you,

“I never attempted to argue that an external gesture can be used to evaluate character.”

Then in a later diatribe you state:

“My contention is that an overly effeminate priest is manifesting his internal disposition”

Meh? Your posturing sways. Period.

 

[Melchior]

What should now be required in seminary is that every seminarian be required to spend at least 40 hours watching Steve McQueen and Clint Eastwood films. If they exhibit school girl crushes rather than macho responses to Steve or Clint they should be thrown out of seminary immediately. While those remaining should exhibit more masculine qualities and start saying things like “I know what you’re thinking: “Did he pray five decades, or only four?” Well, to tell you the truth in all this contemplation, I’ve kinda lost track myself. But, being this is a .44 Magnum rosary, the most powerful sacramental in the world, and would sanctify your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: “Do I feel lucky?” Well, do ya punk?”

 

[Franciscan]

What should now be required in seminary is that every seminarian be required to spend at least 40 hours watching Steve McQueen and Clint Eastwood films. If they exhibit school girl crushes rather than macho responses to Steve or Clint they should be thrown out of seminary immediately. While those remaining should exhibit more masculine qualities and start saying things like “In all the contemplation I can’t remember if I prayed 4 decades or 5… the questions is do you feel lucky? Do ya, Punk?”

THANKS FOR THAT. THIS IS WHAT THIS THREAD NEEDED A LITTLE HUMOR

 

[setter]

Setter, here are two quotes from you,

“I never attempted to argue that an external gesture can be used to evaluate character .”

Then in a later diatribe you state:

"My contention is that an overly effeminate priest is manifesting his internal disposition "

Meh? Your posturing sways. Period.

There is no mealy mouth “sway” in my use of terms as you insinuate:

**dis•po•si•tion ** –noun, defn: 1. the predominant or prevailing tendency of one’s spirits; natural mental and emotional outlook or mood; characteristic attitude: a girl with a pleasant disposition.

**char•ac•ter ** –noun, defn: 1. the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing. 2. one such feature or trait; characteristic. 3. moral or ethical quality: a man of fine, honorable character.

Must you resort to uncharitable derogatory characterizations of a fellow forum poster in these discussion exchanges?

**di•a•tribe ** –noun; defn: a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism.

 

[palmas85]

I have to bring up something at this point.

Father X, a Priest I knew in my youth, one of four at the parish and who has since gone to wherever he went, may he rest in peace, was not only quite effeminate, but would in all honesty put the boys on Queer Eye to shame,. He was also one of the finest, most orthodox Priests I ever knew. He worked a lot with the Altar Boys, and told us repeatedly that he had been given an especially heavy cross to bear and that he had to struggle with it every day and in every way imaginable. He never went further than that. As far as I know he never had any inappropriate dealings with any of the Altar Boys. As to his private life, I don’t know.

The fact is he saw his homosexuality as something God gave him as a trial and a burden to struggle against and to fight. He did not whine about it, make excuses for it or really given the morals of the time, try very hard to hide it. He wasn’t proud of it but accepted it and dealt with it. He taught us without ever saying anything about it that we could overcome physical desires as well as mental longings if we called on God for help. I have used his memory many times over the years as an example in how to struggle with and overcome the various temptations of life that try to derail us on our path.

 

[setter]

I have to bring up something at this point.

Father X, a Priest I knew in my youth, one of four at the parish and who has since gone to wherever he went, may he rest in peace, was not only quite effeminate, but would in all honesty put the boys on Queer Eye to shame,.

The fact is he saw his homosexuality as something God gave him as a trial and a burden to struggle against and to fight. He did not whine about it, make excuses for it or really given the morals of the time, try very hard to hide it. …

Below is an excerpt from the CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION which since then excludes from ordination those men who “present deep-seated homosexual tendencies”:

Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, **present deep-seated homosexual tendencies **or support the so-called “gay culture”

The spiritual director has the obligation to evaluate all the qualities of the candidate’s personality and to make sure that he does not present disturbances of a sexual nature, which are incompatible with the priesthood. If a candidate practises homosexuality or presents deep-seated homosexual tendencies, his spiritual director as well as his confessor have the duty to dissuade him in conscience from proceeding towards ordination.

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

 

[palmas85]

Below is an excerpt from the CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION which since then excludes from ordination those men who “present deep-seated homosexual tendencies”:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

Had that particular law been in force in the late 30’s when this particular Priest was ordained a great many of us, including those he ministered to as a military chaplain in WW2, he was at the D-Day invasion by the way, would have been deprived of a truly wonderful,compassionate and reverent Priest, who not only knew the role of a Priest but lived it every day, by word and example…

Sometimes in an effort to to solve a problem we overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[palmas85]

Below is an excerpt from the CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION which since then excludes from ordination those men who “present deep-seated homosexual tendencies”:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

I think the difference was that father did not to the best of my knowledge practice homosexuality, did not in any way support or defend a gay lifestyle and struggled every day of his life to overcome it as best he could. That example of self denial and subjugation to the will of God made a powerful impression on many of us that served Mass with him for many years. We knew he was different from other men. We could see it, and there were more than enough homosexuals in New Orleans that we had an idea that was what his problem was.

But you would not know it from the way he conducted himself as a Priest. Not in the slightest.

 

[dapper]

There is no mealy mouth “sway” in my use of terms as you insinuate:

**dis•po•si•tion ** –noun, defn: 1. the predominant or prevailing tendency of one’s spirits; natural mental and emotional outlook or mood; characteristic attitude: a girl with a pleasant disposition.

**char•ac•ter ** –noun, defn: 1. the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of some person or thing. 2. one such feature or trait; characteristic. 3. moral or ethical quality: a man of fine, honorable character.

Must you resort to uncharitable derogatory characterizations of a fellow forum poster in these discussion exchanges?

**di•a•tribe ** –noun; defn: a bitter, sharply abusive denunciation, attack, or criticism.

There was nothing derogatory or uncharitable in my post. Period.

 

[dapper]

I think the difference was that father did not to the best of my knowledge practice homosexuality, did not in any way support or defend a gay lifestyle and struggled every day of his life to overcome it as best he could. That example of self denial and subjugation to the will of God made a powerful impression on many of us that served Mass with him for many years. We knew he was different from other men. We could see it, and there were more than enough homosexuals in New Orleans that we had an idea that was what his problem was.

But you would not know it from the way he conducted himself as a Priest. Not in the slightest.

What a great post. What a well adjusted way at looking at people (first and foremost) and priests as well. It’s an utter shame that some would have written this priest off as unfit based on his effeminacy. He may have been different from other men, but the message of Jesus destorys such barriers. It supercedes the mortal coil and failings of the human condition…in most.

Again, so well adjusted and mature of you to have realized this at an early age and look back on it so fondly.
Thanks for sharing!

 

[setter]

I think the difference was that father did not to the best of my knowledge practice homosexuality, did not in any way support or defend a gay lifestyle and struggled every day of his life to overcome it as best he could. That example of self denial and subjugation to the will of God made a powerful impression on many of us that served Mass with him for many years. We knew he was different from other men. We could see it, and there were more than enough homosexuals in New Orleans that we had an idea that was what his problem was.

But you would not know it from the way he conducted himself as a Priest. Not in the slightest.

I was simply clarifying the issues overlay between the negative impact upon many in the flock of an overly effeminate priest, and the current instruction of the Church in the discernment and fitness for ordination of men with an established and predominant homosexual attraction. It would have appeared that this priest would not have made the cut had such instruction been implemented during his seminarian years.

BTW – I can only applaud the heroic virtue of this particular priest in carrying gracefully his specific cross. This provided that he did not seek to make his homosexual attraction public knowledge and seek parishoner acceptance of his disordered sexual attraction. Homosexual attraction is psychological disorder and a difficult cross to bear.

 

[setter]

There was nothing derogatory or uncharitable in my post. Period.

You got one person to believe this.

 

[setter]

What a great post. What a well adjusted way at looking at people (first and foremost) and priests as well. It’s an utter shame that some would have written this priest off as unfit based on his effeminacy. He may have been different from other men, but the message of Jesus destorys such barriers. It supercedes the mortal coil and failings of the human condition…in most.

Again, so well adjusted and mature of you to have realized this at an early age and look back on it so fondly.
Thanks for sharing!

You appear to be blurring the distinction between a priest with a constitutionally overly effeminate disposition and affective display and an already ordained priest or seminarian candidate with a strong and predominate homosexual attraction. The Church has spoken to the latter: vatican.va/roman_curia/co…uzione_en.html

 

[dapper]

You got one person to believe this.

All this negativity! Heal Setter, heal! Your post after this was very nice by the way.

 

[dapper]

You appear to be blurring the distinction between a priest with a constitutionally overly effeminate disposition and affective display and an already ordained priest or seminarian candidate with a strong and predominate homosexual attraction. The Church has spoken to the latter: vatican.va/roman_curia/co…uzione_en.html

I tried to get on this link and I think it’s broken.