Southern Appeal - "With a rebel yell, they cried more, more, more!"
Steve,
I dont follow you. My reading of the new policy is that if I am gay, even if willing to forego acting on my impulse and be celebate in light of devotion to Christ and the faith, that is still a deep-rooted tendency and I am now banned from the priesthood. Is this wrong?
You know, I read this story in the paper this morning (the one about the Franciscan monastary) and couldn't help but wonder why it is so hard for certain Catholics to grasp the concept of hierarchy and tradition. The go it alone route that these Franciscans had taken can only be loosely termed Catholic by the most generous of souls. It is one thing to embrace ecumenism, another to so pervert one's own faith in the interests of "dialogue."
And of course Andy makes the leap, as he must do with all things, to the Church's supposed intolerance of all things, in particular homosexuality. The tiresomeness of his silly non sequitor aside, one must wonder at what point people will simply stop pretending to be Catholic as they get angered when the Catholic Church actually advances Catholic doctrine. If Andy wants to start a new religion, or convert, he is free to do so. But as is par for the course with excitiable Andy, his religion, like his ideology, must be so twisted that in conforms wholly within his self-centered mindset.
Can a priest be celibate and faithful to Church teaching and identify himself as a heterosexual, or should all priests identify themselves as asexual?
Mark, actually, and in my opinion weirdly, it seems that some people have deep rooted gayness while some do not and they will now try to exclude the totally gay ones from seminaries. I dunno, to me it's like being a little pregnant.
So everyone here I trust is faithful to the Church's long-standing, explicit stance against birth control?
If not, does that mean they must choose between the Church and not forcing their wives to have 25 kids.
Or does that sin not count because it's something you like to do.
The problem I have is with priests identifying themselves as gay. It suggests an embrace of homosexual culture and the accompanying lifestyle. And even if one is born with an inclination toward homosexual behavior/tendencies (a point I am willing to concede for the sake of argument), so what? Ultimately, one either chooses to act on those deviant tendencies or one doesn't. The Church has clearly stated that it is a sin to engage in homosexual conduct, so why in the world would a priest feel the need to self-identify as gay? What possible purpose does it serve, other than to foucs attention on the priest rather than Christ?
And FWIW, Jim Bob, I see no reason for a priest to announce/emphasize that he is a hetrosexual if he is celibate.
and you know i love you and all feddie, but i really disagree with your hostility to homosexuals. there's a way to make the substantive points you're making without using inflammatory language like "homosexual radicals" and "lewd" and what not.
publius, remember that not all SA posters are Catholic, and therefore don't obey the Catholic Church's teachings on birth control. Like, me for instance. (Not trying to stir the combox pot or anything, just making a point.)
Mark and JimBob -
The Church doesn't divide people into two camps -- "straight" and "gay" -- the way the secular world does. It simply sees a group of humans, most of whom have internal quirks of one kind or another which, if acted upon, would prevent the kind of loving marriage and openness to children that She considers the only outlet for sexual desire that conforms to the natural law, and the only one that will ultimately make us happy.
For this reason, priests ought not to buy into the proposition that some people are "gay" and that everyone is by definition is "straight." (Besides, and as a practical matter, any number of people with homosexual inclinations are also capable of marriage, and any number of people with heterosexual inclinations have or have had homosexual thoughts). They are priests, and what's important is their commitment to live as Jesus did, not whatever obstacles they must surmount to do so.
For this reason, while the term "deep-seated tendency" is not defined, it seems to be being read by the bishops as something so strong that it would prevent one from accepting the Church's teachings on sexuality, living them, and sharing them with others. In short, the document says that people who put their sexual orientation front-and-center in their lives ought not to be priests. This is not a "new" teaching, nor is its specific application to people with homosexual inclinations new.
publius-
I am against birth control, and I am committed to the Church's teaching on that issue. I know that there are some exceptions to birth control, i.e., when a woman is required to take birth control for medical reasons having nothing to do with preventing conception. But I take it that you're not really interested in discussing such things.
BTw, what's your point? Because a majority of the Catholic Church's members don't take the Church's birth control stance seriously, the Church should just drop its stance for pragmatist reasons? Come on, Publius. Many of Jesus's teachings are hard. The fact that many fail to live by them or attempt to live by them doesn't make them any less true.
Pub.-
I am not hostle toward homosexual in general. Indeed, I am truly sorry for the situation they find themselves in, and I earnestly pray that they will be delivered from the grip of their particular sin. But folks like Andrew Sullivan are waging a war on the traditional family and the Catholic Church, and they are very good at what they do. They are unquestionably radicals, and I intend to call them exactly what they are.
Jim-
Ah, but you should if you're going to have an intellectually consistent pro-life position. 
Feddie,
It seems to me you display hostility. I have no idea if that's how you truly feel or not, nor am I offering any opinion on the merits of the Catholic Church's position.
The point is this - why does this one "sin" get so much more attention than the other one?
To me, this suggests that the hub-bub has less to do with the fact that it's a sin per se (which would suggest birth control and homosexuality should be equally denounced), and more with the fact that religion is affirming a pre-existing social prejudice (intolerance of homosexuality).
in other words, it's dressing up prejudice in the cloak of religious piety. that's why everyone ignores the Church's birth control principles and goes ape-do-do about its homosexuality principles. the birth control prohibition is not a cloak for intolerance - that's why everyone ignores it.
Can you provide a link to the Catholic Church's birth control policy? I would like to see it. Thanks
It seems to me like a lot of Catholics admit to being "sinners." Are they embracing their sin or are they "confessing" it? It seems to me that the weakness in your argument lies in the assumption that admitting you are gay equates to "embracing" the lifestyle. I just don't think that's the case, any more than admitting you sin is embracing the sin. Could it be that many right-leaning Catholics, right or wrong, have an inherent dislike for that particular sin and, as a result, have a tendency to view any mention of it as "embracing" it?
put another way, I think we should stop pretending this is about "sin." It's about other things (both political and psychological). Birth control is apparently a "sin" and no one cares.
As for the hostility, I'm just offering friendly advice. I know you care about the family, and I know your views. The problem is that you're never going to convince anyone using the rhetoric you use. The second people see "homosexual radicals", they tune out and associate you with people who you probably don't care to be associated with.
You catch more flies with honey. And Jesus showed love to the most marginalized members of society. That's an important lesson of hte Gospels. "homosexual radicals" is not rooted in love or christian fellowship. it's divisive and un-Christ-like
Publius -
The Catholic Church teaches us about lots of things; birth control and homosexuality are only two of them. If you attend a Catholic Church regularly, you won't hear priests or lay Catholics discussing either subject much; things like charity, holiness, and Notre Dame's chances in the Fiesta Bowl come up much more often. If you hear a lot about the Catholic Church and homosexuality, chances are its because the media see the tension between Church teaching and popular thought, and publicize it.
See this for a better description of the phenomenon.
Pub.-
Your point is well taken. I think what you and TP are sensing is frustration, not hostility. I am frustrated at those Catholics who are unwilling to accept the Church's teaching on homosexuality.
And guys, the reason why the Church gives this sin so much attention is because the culture and "gay is o.k." crowd demand it. Moreover, as I noted in a post below, there is good reason to believe that there is at least some correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia--so in this respect the Church is attempting to address the abuse scandal.
Yeah, for the record, I wasn't a big fan of that post below, Feddie. You know I generally choose quite carefully what I comment on over here, and I wasn't going to get involved in that imbroglio, but I encourage you to read some of Jon Rowe's postings on the matter, where he has quite effectively debunked the notion of a significant connection between homosexuality and pedophilia.
On this issue, I think publius, as usual, nails it when he says that "The second people see "homosexual radicals", they tune out and associate you with people who you probably don't care to be associated with."
I've interacted with you long enough to be able to sense some distance between you and those who truly and unabashedly display hostility towards GLBs, but sometimes the tone of your posts blur that line for me.
And I also think publius is exactly right one tends to hear far less fulmination from this blog and other Catholic pundits on the issue of birth control than on GLB issues. To be clear, I am not suggesting, dear Fed, that you are merely masking intolerance of GLBs through Catholic doctrine, but merely that I suspect the extent of that phenomenon is quite a bit more prevalent than you might think.
All JMO.
It's not the sin. It's the agenda. Because the agenda demands that the sin is no longer seen as sin. The problem with a priest with an agenda is that they don't proclaim what the Church teaches but their agenda; they don't live their lives according to Chruch teaching but according to their agenda.
You know, I really, really get the impression that from some of the comment’s here people think the church’s teaching should conform to their way of thinking, drop it already, if the pope decides to make this particular subject the one to voice concern about tough diddly what YOU think he should also make comment about, no one is demanding that you follow the Catholic Church (pub, TP, T-unit), we may ask that you should, but we aren’t demanding it.
The Church’s teachings are there for all to see, and learn, this is the persons choice (FREE WILL) to do so or not, don’t preach to us that the Church should also treat each subject with the exact same press as every other church teaching, homosexuality has been a bane and scourge on the Church, it’s high time that it is getting this amount of attention, whether you like it or NOT. There are also lots of other conditions, which are of great concern, but will bowl this game one pin at a time.
T-Unit,
I'm a right-leaning Catholic and I don't think there's any question that many right-leaning Catholics have an inherent dislike for that particular sin. However, that inherent dislike is certainly not unique to right-leaning Catholics.
Societal perceptions about homosexuality have changed significantly in the last few decades. Obviously, the Catholic Church shouldn't change with society. However, I see no problem allowing a celibate, gay priest to serve quietly. Feddie makes a good point about there being no need for a priest to announce his sexuality.
One of my concerns is numbers. There's already a shortage of priests. Will a substantial number have to resign in light of this new policy? I would wager that a relatively high percentage of priests are gay--something like 10 percent.
Besides, it's completely dishonest to accuse the Church of emphasizing this one sin. I attend very Orthodox services, and rarely does the subject come up during homilies. You're much more likely to be lectured about being too materialistic at Christmastime than you are to hear much about homosexuality. It's just that the issue over gay clergy has become the hot button issue because of the new document, and as such it needs addressing.
william--if that truly is your position, perhaps you can petition feddie to disable the comments section on any post you think we should just shut up and not comment on.
Jimbob--No, I agree. I didn't mean to suggest that the belief is limited to Catholics.
Paul--I don't think anyone accused the Catholic Church of emphasizing one sin. I accused a certain segment of Catholics from emphasizing one sin.
Perhaps you can actually understand what I said!
I'm sorry. I thought when you told us to "drop it already" you were telling us to, well, drop it.
T-Unit: fair enough, though I was really addressing Publius more than you.
I still think the argument is something of a red herring. The subject is the ordination of priests who self-identify as gay, and have not aptly demonstrated an ability to overcome those feelings. The only reason it is even being discussed is because it happens to be a topic that has much do with other contemporary issues. But guess what - the Church also isn't keen on Priests who promote the use of birth control, abortion, pre-marital sex, etc.
What separates this issue of course is that we're dealing with a priest's (or would-be seminarian's) personal behavior, but a personal behavior that contravenes Church teaching. The Church is looking to bar from the priesthood those individuals who might be prone to sympathize with behavior that is contrary to its teaching.
Ferchrissakes - literally - all the pope said is that priests who tend towards comfortable shoes have to refrain from sex for three years prior to joining the priesthood.
This is precisely 50% worse than what a lot of orders require of their heterosexual novitiates. I have a friend who believes he has a calling, but keeps having trouble with women. He has been told he needs to go two years celibate, before he can jine up. Given that the Church's problem has been with homosexual pederasty and homosexual sex with adolescents - maybe not a crime but still abusive where a priest is involved - it strikes me that the "three years, no hot gay sex" requirement is a reasonable response. Yeah, it's real gay bashing Publius, just the way that the two years celibacy requirement my buddy is struggling with is real hetero bashing...
Can someone (Steve, perhaps) please explain what the "homosexual lifestyle" is? Assuming a priest is chaste, then how would he be "embracing" that lifestyle rather then "the Catholic Church and its teachings?" Is this some sort of prohibition on priests being overly effeminate, whistling show tunes, or some other such stereotypical assumption?
And if I were to assume for the sake of argument that homosexual behavior is sinful, then I'd join the others wondering why this sin is different. Given that drinking to excess is prohibited by the Bible and Church teachings, are we going to see the Pope issue a directive forbidding the ordination of recovering alcoholics?
"Hey Andrew, if a priest is "celibate" and "faithful" to Church teaching, then he has no need to self-identify as "gay," now does he?"
Wow.
If a priest is faithful to Church teachings, does he have any need to self-identify as Irish, does he?
I can't understand why a celibate gay priest is worse for the church than an active heterosexual priest. Plus, from what I remember of the policy, a celibate gay priest who has stayed celibate for several (3?) years and does not advocate for the gay lifestyle can still be allowed in the seminary.
I've seen priests who identify as gay without advocating anything in my church and I've seen the pain and destruction caused by heterosexual priests who preyed on women and girls. I prefer the former.
You still don’t get it. Discussing it is fine, the drop it part is the fact that the church wants to discuss it and thinks it is one of thee most important topics to discuss and comment on, get it. YOU are saying they shouldn’t, or should be emphasizing other parts, I’m saying we get our direction from the Church, not YOU, drop the fact that this is a topic the Catholic Church holds dear, do you get it. This is an important subject for the Church right now, enough with the sophistry of, but what about birth control, what about charity, what about, what about, what about.
What about accepting that this is what the pope has chosen. Don’t pretend your some open minded person willing to see all side’s, you do not like the church’s stance on this and if your honest why not say you really don’t like them period. Then will know that this is a waste of a discussion.
Geez William. Way to cut to the chase and spoil all the sophistry and diversions for us...
As I've put it to my liberal friends who needle me about the Church's stands on one thing or another... I don't care. It's not a democracy. And if it was, I'd leave. I don't want a religion, a practice oriented on "eternal truths," where the eternal truths can be voted on by the NY Times Op-Ed staff, Planned Parenthood, Jack Kervorkian, and the guy I saw in the gay pride parade with the butt-less leather pants and the dog collar. For that matter, I don't want a church where the eternal truths are voted on by a bunch of ultra-adherent pre-Vatican II rite folks who think the rest of us are vulgate speaking apostates. The whole point of having the hierarchy, the whole design, is to have somebody with final say in these matters. Honestly. I couldn't care less about the Church's stand on waiving parking tickets for Cardinals in Vatican City. Doesn't matter, it is what it is. If you don't like it, there's always the Episcopalians. It ain't much of a religion if the religious dogma is up for a vote.
william--it appears you are the one that doesn't "get it." I never said the church can't do what it wants. I didn't say anything remotely similar to that. Yet you suggested I "drop it." This suggests either you didn't want me to discuss it, or you didn't "get" my posts. Which is it?
Al Maviva,
"Homosexual pederasty" does not exist. A pedophile and a homosexual are not synonymous. The thing with pederasty is power. It has nothing to do with sex or love any more than rape does.
Answer my last paragraph and I'll answer you.
Feddie says you should oppose birth control "if you're going to have an intellectually consistent pro-life position." Support for abortifacient forms of birth control (i.e., most medicinal forms) is certainly inconsistent with a pro-life position. But not so for barrier methods. It is perfectly consistent to support the protection of existing life in all its pre-born forms without necessarily supporting the creation of additional life at every opportunity.
Anon-
That may be a fair point for Non-Catholic prolifers, but Catholics should always be open to life unless there is a serious medical reason that precludes such openess.
Well, sure. But that's a wholly different claim from "[you should oppose birth control ]if you're going to have an intellectually consistent pro-life position."
william--I'm sorry, I didn't see that you had asked me any question in your last paragraph. Charitably interpreting your paragraph, though, the only conceivable question you seem to ask is "what about accepting this is what the pope has chosen."
Um, ok. What about it. I think if you reread all of my posts, you'll come to the conclusion very quickly that nowhere did I suggest otherwise. In fact, I think if you read my posts you'll come to the same conclusion I have: directing your post at me made absolutely no sense UNLESS your point was that we should just shut up and not discuss it. Frankly, I view your attempts to mischaracterize my statements along with your subsequent attempts to revise your own as indicating you are either blatantly dishonest, or extremely mistaken.
Anon-
RE: "supporting the creation of additional life at every opportunity."
If you understand biology, there is abstinence for a short time that can avoid the creation of life as well as avoid the sin of playing God.
Sophist:
link to Humanea Vitae
Et all,
the vatican is not obsessed with sex, the world values sex too little. And the media is obsessed with the Vatican's moral values on sex.
KaLe,
Thanks for the biology lesson.
Seriously, though, do you really think that periodic abstinence during fertile periods for the express purpose of avoiding conception plays God any less than sex during fertile periods but with a condom, which could fail quite easily?
And, among your reasons for believing that use of non-abortifacient contraception is a sin, do you have any that would be persuasive to non-Catholics (such as myself) that have read, understand, and respect Church teaching on the matter, but don't find it persuasive in the least?
Donald,
It is actually very hard for recovering alcoholics to be ordained.
Okay, fine Amanda. Homosexual pederasty doesn't exist. Let's just say "pederastic priests who for some reason only get out their power kick on young boys, along with priests who push teenage young men, and only young men, under their guidance into unwanted sexual relationships." Nothing homosexual about this, it's only about power... right? I presume an equal number of female victims are silent and afraid to come forward for some reason, since if it is only about power, it follows that deviant priests should abuse females at roughly the same rate that they abuse males, correct?
We live in a predominantly heterosexual society that accepts fornication, adultery, gross immodesty etc as 'normal'. Is it any wonder that certain people are going to have a hard time understanding what the recent letter from the Holy See is discussing when it mentions 'the so-called "gay" culture' (haven't read it, just paraphrasing the reported versions) which candidates for Orders need to abjure?
Commenting by HaloScan
