Vatican Instruction on Homosexuality: Neuhaus article

[MulusChristi]

A very thought-provoking and disturbing reflection by Richard John Neuhaus in First Things on the Nov. 4 Instruction and the church’s response. Al Kresta just had him on his show. Here’s a provocative taste from the article:

“Those who reject the instruction and the moral doctrine on which it is based—Jesuits being conspicuous but by no means alone—render a perversely valuable contribution. They have clarified what is at stake. Which brings us back to the Truce of 1968 and what could, God forbid, turn out to be the Truce of 2005. Although the instruction reiterates the consistent teaching of Scripture and tradition through the ages, and although the document is explicitly approved by the pope and issued by his authority, will it be allowed, as it was allowed with Humanae Vitae, for official representatives of the Church to reject the doctrine and the directives, and to do so with impunity? There can be no doubt that the rejectionists have thrown down the gauntlet in challenging the still-young pontificate of Benedict XVI.”

Here’s the full article: firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0602/public.html

Comments?

 

[emsvetich]

I read the article yesterday and came away very disappointed that there were still those who will do everything they can to water down Catholic teaching. I still cling to that apparently niave belief that politics should not be tolerated when it comes between Catholic dogma and the fulfillment of our responsibilities as Catholics. The supposedly superior intelligencia of the Catholic Church, whether theolgians, Bishops, Religious Orders or enlightened laity have much to account for in Church history. The public scandal that we are daily subjected to regarding cafeteria catholic behavior continues to confuse not only weakly catecheized Catholics but also non-catholics who repeatedly hear these people introduced as “faithful Catholics” by the media.

With about 32% of Catholics attending mass regularly, one must ask if this lack of fidelity by “Catholic media darlings” has not led to confusion resulting in loss of faith or, at the very least, the lack of certainty in Catholic faith. That is probably a retorical question. In my opinion, the answer is a definite yes.

In my opinion, of even more concern is the Church’s response to questions such as the sanctity of life and now homosexuality. The most recent national election brought out the dubious and confusing attempt to justify voting for pro-abortion candidates with the blessing of the Catholic Church. Many clergy, under the social justice umbrella, promoted an anti-Bush ( war) agenda as a morally superior motivation justifying their vote for outspoken pro-abortion candidates. I find such moral gymnastics from Catholic clergy to be repugnant.

I have recently written my bishop and pointedly asked what he was going to do about the lack of abortion catechesis in our local churches. This past weekend, our priest did not mention the 40,000,000 innocent lives that have been killed since Roe v Wade. He did, however, note the American lives lost in Iraq. Is that the proportionality that they are talking about? If we, as traditional-not cafeteria catholics- do not make our views know, who will? If the remaining 32% of us who actually go to mass and believe in the Real Presence and act reverently in church do not communicate with our local clergy and discuss these issues, who will?

As I said, I am disappointed that Richard John Newhaus had to write this article, but I am more disappointed at those who will just stand back and accept the possible eventuality of his Truce of 2005. I have commited to make my voice heard.

 

[fix]

As many cultural observers have noted, the success of the gay ideology in recent decades has almost obliterated the memory of those who used to be called bachelors. They were understood to be those who could get along, or preferred to get along, without sex or marriage. Today it is the entrenched cultural orthodoxy that, whatever the “orientation” of one’s sexual desire, that desire and acting on that desire are essential to one’s identity and psychological well-being.

With many of the critics, it is possible to cut through the obfuscation by simply asking whether they accept the Church’s teaching that homosexual desire is disordered and homogenital acts are intrinsically immoral. The emphasis here is not on the disorder but on the act. If it is agreed that the act is immoral, then it follows that the desire to commit the act is disordered. One cannot have a rightly ordered desire to do wrong.

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0602/public.html

 

[MulusChristi]

Neuhaus’s article struck a cord with me because I am one of the poorly catechized products of the Truce of 68. Until the last few years, I never understood or could accept the Church’s teaching on ABC. Alas, for me the understanding has come a little too late. My marriage would have benefited so much if I had had good teaching about it at the beginning. Now I fear we are headed for the same thing on this issue.

 

[felra]

I believe that as this article notes, there is much antecdotal evidence that a significant contributor to the current shortage of priests is due to the indiscriminate ordination of men with a strong [unresolved] SSA. Such a shame that in many camps within the Church the drumbeat goes on.

In response to the Roman instruction, Bishop D’Arcy writes:

“Some have said that, if this document is implemented, it will lead to a shortage of priests. I do not believe that. I think the way out of the shortage is to ordain young men of quality—not supermen, which would eliminate all of us—but good men who would also make good husbands and fathers, and who can make a gift of themselves to others. These, in turn, will draw similar men.”

“There is a division in the priesthood.” I expect most bishops and priests would agree with that, and can cite chapter and verse from their own experience. Those who write about a “lavender mafia” that dominates some seminaries, chancery offices, and church bureaucracies may sometimes overstate the matter. But it is no surprise that like attracts like. Generally speaking, men who are attracted to men are attracted to men who are attracted to men. Sociologists call it elective affinity.

Father Bruce Williams, O.P., and Bishop D’Arcy both affirm the Church’s teaching on human sexuality and welcome the new instruction. Fr. Williams titles his essay, “Rome and Gays: A Nuanced Response.” Bishop D’Arcy says, in effect, that it is such nuance that got us into the present mess. While the Church must be loving and pastorally concerned in dealing with everyone, he says, when it comes to the priesthood, the word must go forth that the Church is looking for manly men.

 

[fix]

It is a great article in many ways. While reading it I reflected on all the threads that discussed the merits, or demerits, of posting things about priests and bishops words regarding their fidelity to the teachings from Rome.

 

[felra]

fix:

It is a great article in many ways. While reading it I reflected on all the threads that discussed the merits, or demerits, of posting things about priests and bishops words regarding their fidelity to the teachings from Rome.

Along these lines of differing opinions, here are 2 secular newspaper article links offering pro/con regarding the ordination of “gay” men to the priesthood:

Point: freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051130/OPINION02/511300325

Counterpoint: freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051212/OPINION02/512120330&template=printart

 

[MulusChristi]

Hello felra,
Your first posted article is referred to in the Neuhaus piece. I was educated by Jesuits in high school and have a great deal of residual affection for them. It is sad that such a proud order as the Jesuits, once the spiritual shock troops of the Pope, have become enmeshed in such heterodox positions. St. Ignatius would have been scandalized. Now, the only Jesuit I see whom I really admire is Fr. Mitch Pacwa.

 

[Ortho]

It will be interesting to see if the Vatican can implement its directive when a large portion of Catholic clergy are reported to be gay. I think Where Have All The Good Men Gone reported 75% were gay for one particular year. That sems a bit high, but I don’t know. I have also read 20% and 40%.

One also has to question the seriousness of the pope and his directive since he is letting gay priests remain in their posts. That implies it’s not much of a problem.

I don’t have Where Have All The Good Men Gone handy, so I can’t cite the 75%. If it’s wrong, and someone has the book, please say so.

 

[manualman]

Do you mean “Goodbye Good Men?” IIRC it was rather unanimously criticised as exaggerated and alarmist, though containing some points worth consideration.

 

[Ortho]

manualman:

Do you mean “Goodbye Good Men?” IIRC it was rather unanimously criticised as exaggerated and alarmist, though containing some points worth consideration.

Correct. Thanks.