Fr. Heilman: The Depth of My Anger of Decades of Effete Bishops

[graciew]

Grace,this is a priest with a pen who for some reason turned on the fan to what he himself thinks and feels.
One priest, his thoughts. No more no less than any other priest.
I would suggest we keep that in perspective.
There is enough sensitivity around to add more to it.
And it also happens with opinion pieces in the news, for better or worse,that is what they are: an opinion.
And perhaps he just went a bit too far generalizing.
Peace…

 

[JimG]

When were homosexual seminarians first permitted? Was it a worldwide change?

I don’t have that information readily at hand, but I think it was fairly recent that there was a specific prohibition on admitting men with a deep seated homosexual orientation to seminary. A prohibition that does not seem to have been followed in many cases.

 

[PJH_74]

His whole article seems to use the lens of his uncle to criticize the current Church. He seems to be using him to define whit he doesn’t like; what ever liberal means in his mind. If he is going to call the Bishops here Effete, he should be more concerned about their address of the priest scandals. Even inmates consider pedophiles the lowest of the low, I still don’t understand their protectionism.

 

[exnihilo]

Even inmates consider pedophiles the lowest of the low, I still don’t understand their protectionism.

To quote Kris Kristofferson

everybody’s got to have somebody to look down on.
Who they can feel better than at anytime they please

 

[PetraG]

I think there may be a way to go if you think its black and white and so “the others” fault).

It is a stretch to say it is the bishops’ fault. It is a huge stretch to imagine anyone in a chancery office, let alone a bishop, was encouraging the uncle to be so rude to a brother priest, particularly a younger relative. I would be surprised if the older priest was so nasty to anyone in the priesthood he didn’t know as well, either.

It is no stretch at all to imagine family dynamics gave the older priest room to be so rude.

 

[PetraG]

So I’m horrified by the current crisis and what I’m sadly learning about seminaries. Some of what I’ve read (open sexual activity, drinking and drug use, priests keeping lovers in separate quarters that they visit on their off days) is mindblowingly anti-Catholic. But is this all really attributable to VII, as I think Fr. Heilman might believe? Is it all new or did seminaries struggle with these issues in previous generations as well?

It certainly happened in prior ages. I think we know where the word “nepotism” came from. It is a reference to privileges and advantages that came the way of the “nephews” of popes and bishops, who were in many cases the illegitimate sons of those powerful clergymen.

Those were, it ought to be noted, ages in which the seminaries and priesthood were sorely in need of reform.

 

[Ardent_Fire]

When were homosexual seminarians first permitted? Was it a worldwide change?

Generally throughout history and particularly in the Church in past centuries, being openly gay as we see it now was unthinkable. So I’m guessing that’s why there was never a specific ban or mention of it. No need to have a ban when nobody was openly gay. Anyone who was ever accused of being gay would have likely denied it, or if there were suspicions, people probably just didn’t talk about it.

 

[TechieGuy]

Sounds like the guy has some issues

 

[PetraG]

Generally throughout history and particularly in the Church in past centuries, being openly gay as we see it now was unthinkable. So I’m guessing that’s why there was never a specific ban or mention of it. No need to have a ban when nobody was openly gay. Anyone who was ever accused of being gay would have likely denied it, or if there were suspicions, people probably just didn’t talk about it.

Sodomy was often considered a capital offense. Yeah, they kept it quiet.

 

[angel12]

I’m sorry GP, are you a man or woman. That above statement is confusing. Are you a “womanpriest?” Am I reading that wrong??

Womanpriest? Grace has never said anything to even remotely suggest that.

 

[joeybaggz]

I remember the term “deep seated homosexual tendencies” being implemented in language coming from the Bishops statement on what would disqualify a candidate for the seminary after the 2002 Dallas Conference when the Bishops of the U.S. met to meet the proliferation of claims of abuse in the late 90’s and early 2000s. I’m not too sure if that language was operative before that. There were seminaries found to be very open and tolerant of homosexuals in the 80’ and 90’s and probably earlier. It is those graduates who are the bulk of the problem today.

 

[PetraG]

I remember the term “deep seated homosexual tendencies” being implemented in language coming from the Bishops statement on what would disqualify a candidate for the seminary after the 2002 Dallas Conference when the Bishops of the U.S. met to meet the proliferation of claims of abuse in the late 90’s and early 2000s. I’m not too sure if that language was operative before that. There were seminaries found to be very open and tolerant of homosexuals in the 80’ and 90’s and probably earlier. It is those graduates who are the bulk of the problem today.

I think we’re straying from the subject a bit, here. Can we clarify that being homosexual and being effeminate or effete are NOT the same thing? (I hope it goes without saying that to be effeminate and to be feminine are also not remotely the same thing!!)

Tolerance for expressing homosexuality in a genital way isn’t the same thing as failing to exhibit what the Romans would have called ideal masculine traits–gravity, steeliness, simplicity with dignity, and so on–as opposed to over-familiarity, an inordinate love of comfort, over-refinement, conflict avoidance, a fondness for frills at the expense of content, and so on.

What I mean to say is that the priest is not accusing the bishops of being homosexual. That isn’t why he’s angry. He’s accusing the bishops of lacking a backbone, failing to exert authority, and failing to set high standards of daily living for their priests that implied some amount of austerity and sacrifice rather than feel-good felt-banner “I’m-OK-You’re-OK” pop psychology that really revolves around excessive self-absorption and individualism.

Well, that’s what I think he meant by “For you, living a life of virtue is an unrealistic goal; certainly not anything anyone is capable of living.’” He is talking about relaxing standards and calling it mercy instead of despair. It has nothing to do with sexuality.

Am I reading him right?

 

[PetraG]

You didnt get my small observation sorry.

Sorry, I think you’re right about when the Church made an official point of addressing homosexuality and homosexual tendencies.

I just don’t think the priest in the original post was upset about homosexuality at all. I don’t think most priests resist bringing more gravity back into the Mass are homosexual, either.

 

[brian_custer]

why is “father heilman” so worried about what other people think about catholic orthodoxy?

 

[joeybaggz]

joeybaggz:

I remember the term “deep seated homosexual tendencies” being implemented in language coming from the Bishops statement on what would disqualify a candidate for the seminary after the 2002 Dallas Conference when the Bishops of the U.S. met to meet the proliferation of claims of abuse in the late 90’s and early 2000s. I’m not too sure if that language was operative before that. There were seminaries found to be very open and tolerant of homosexuals in the 80’ and 90’s and probably earlier. It is those graduates who are the bulk of the problem today.

I think we’re straying from the subject a bit, here. Can we clarify that being homosexual and being effeminate or effete are NOT the same thing? (I hope it goes without saying that to be effeminate and to be feminine are also not remotely the same thing!!)

Tolerance for expressing homosexuality in a genital way isn’t the same thing as failing to exhibit what the Romans would have called ideal masculine traits–gravity, steeliness, simplicity with dignity, and so on–as opposed to over-familiarity, an inordinate love of comfort, over-refinement, conflict avoidance, a fondness for frills at the expense of content, and so on.

What I mean to say is that the priest is not accusing the bishops of being homosexual. That isn’t why he’s angry. He’s accusing the bishops of lacking a backbone, failing to exert authority, and failing to set high standards of daily living for their priests that implied some amount of austerity and sacrifice rather than feel-good felt-banner “I’m-OK-You’re-OK” pop psychology that really revolves around excessive self-absorption and individualism.

Well, that’s what I think he meant by “For you, living a life of virtue is an unrealistic goal; certainly not anything anyone is capable of living.’” He is talking about relaxing standards and calling it mercy instead of despair. It has nothing to do with sexuality.

Am I reading him right?

Was referring to littleburgy’s post # 33 or 34 and the question of whether there was specific language/ban on homosexuality in seminaries. Didn’t make that clear.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I think we know where the word “nepotism” came from. It is a reference to privileges and advantages that came the way of the “nephews” of popes and bishops, who were in many cases the illegitimate sons of those powerful clergymen.

Actually I didn’t know that, and I think it’s very worth knowing!

I checked and you are absolutely correct. It’s from Italian “nipote”, for nephew, and refers to the practices of some popes.

 

[PetraG]

Sorry for being a bit unclear, everyone.

I merely meant to clarify that the priest’s use of the word “effete” does not imply he is accusing the bishops of homosexuality or anything having to do with homosexuality. He is accusing the bishops of timidity and of dropping expectations to the detriment of the priesthood.

Having said that…I don’t think there is a sector of society in the US at least, whether religious or not, that hasn’t fallen to a “casual Friday” mentality. There were limits to what bishops could have accomplished with a “my way or the highway” style except when their way reflected the local attitude among the faithful. The people who stick to traditional values, whether traditional Catholics or adherents of Miss Manners, are not universally admired.

 

[AlNg]

Some of what I’ve read (open sexual activity, drinking and drug use, priests keeping lovers in separate quarters that they visit on their off days) is mindblowingly anti-Catholic. But is this all really attributable to VII, as I think Fr. Heilman might believe?

I would think to some extent, yes.

 

[glencor63]

For centuries; perhaps by some we regard as saints. I strongly believe this is the impending revelation that will fracture the Catholic Church and lead to a schism greater than the Protestant Reformation. Millions will reject God himself. It will be a prelude to the end times and Christ’s return. Me, I no longer believe that any branch of Christianity has the fullness of truth. I look to Jesus. He alone is perfect. Come quickly, Lord Jesus!

 

[PaulfromIowa]

All of the recent Popes in the last 70 years, from Pius XII to Francis, have warned not to ordain homosexuals. Obviously, many bishops disregarded those instructions. The book “Goodbye, Good Men” came out circa 2002 detailing the homosexual culture in US seminaries.