On a related subject, it has been announced that the Holy Father has approved a renewal of the Church's policy discouraging the ordination of homosexuals.
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getsto...sp?
number=60630
I have just read a piece on Catholic News saying that the scandals of recent years are a result of the relativism and permissiveness of the post-Vatican II seminaries and that this has now been solved. If that is true, what is the point of this new inquiry?
Here is some of what the article says:
"Sister Schuth, who is a professor of the social scientific study of religion at St. Paul Seminary/St. Thomas University in St. Paul, Minn., completed a comprehensive study of U.S. Catholic theological seminaries in 1989 and a follow-up study 10 years later. She told CNS, "Between the time I did the first study and the second study, the emphasis on education for celibacy really increased greatly. Toward the end of the '80s, into the '90s, some of the allegations (of clergy sexual abuse) began to appear, and I think out of that seminaries really took seriously their responsibility to form men appropriately -- " She said the articulation of what goes into demonstrating a seminarian's preparation to live a mature celibate commitment is much deeper than it used to be.
Father Edward J. Burns, a former seminary rector and now director of the U.S. bishops' Secretariat for Priestly Formation, said another sign of the heightened attention to celibacy formation in recent years has been the growth of professional development programs for seminary formation personnel in that area.
From his own experiences as part of teams visiting seminaries to review their performance, he said, he believes the U.S. seminaries today "are really great places of formation."
IF THINGS ARE SO GOOD, WHY ON EARTH HAVE SUCH AN INVESTIGATION AT THIS POINT? IS THERE NOT A RISK OF KILLING THE GOOSE THAT LAYS THE GOLDEN EGG?
"The text, which was approved by Pope Benedict at the end of August, says that homosexual men should not be admitted to seminaries even if they are celibate, because their condition suggests a serious personality disorder which detracts from their ability to serve as ministers." CONDITION? SERIOUS PERSONALITY DISORDER? Surely this language is at least fifty years out of date?
"Priests who have already been ordained, if they suffer from homosexual impulses, are strongly urged to renew their dedication to chastity, and a manner of life appropriate to the priesthood." SUFFER FROM HOMOSEXUAL IMPULSES? Is this a serious description of sexual orientation? The comedy is stupendous!
"Catholic leaders have consistently taught that homosexual men should not be ordained to the priesthood." Never heard of it.
"Pope John XXIII approved a formal policy to that effect, which still remains in effect." Never heard of it.
If the Church really does not want the priesthood to be perceived as a gay profession then it should invite heterosexuals to join. Its failure to attract the latter is the problem.
The problem is that there are too many sodomites and sodomy-friendly people, such as Fr. O'Leary, in chanceries, seminaries, universities, and other powerful positions in the Church.
Weeding out gays from seminaries will mean that those left behind have thrived on a homophobic policy. It will produce a priesthood completely unable to relate to their gay brothers and sisters.
In reality, the church will remain as gay as it always has been, and probably become even more hypocritical.
If you want to attract straight guys to the presbyterate, begin by not asking them to wear black, purple, red and white dresses.
...broken verses...
Church: "Black"
O'Leary: "White"
Church: "Wrong"
O'Leary: "Right"
Church: "Good"
O'Leary: "Bad"
Church: "Joyful"
O'Leary: "Sad"
What a kettle of fish! Other Christian churches do not have this problem at all. Their ministry is competently carried out by married men and by women as well as by gay men and women. It is the neurosis of a closeted homophobic clerical caste, something with centuries-deep roots, that has got the RCC into its current embarrassing mess. The incompetence of its bureaucracy is stupendous, and will not be resolved by the present quixotic campaign.
One thing that may be achieved by the Vatican's sensational new approach is to cause vocations to the priesthood among gays to dry up. That is, among those gays who are mature, honest, and self-conscious. Others who are in denial of their sexuality will flock to the priesthood as never before, ensuring an INCREASE in just the kind of people who get involved in scandals.
The whole think reeks of falsehood. The psychological ignorance affected in phrases like "suffer from homosexual impulses" hardly augurs a competent or helpful inquiry. Is there the idea that a purge of gays will make the priesthood attractive to an army of heterosexual celibates? A pipe dream. The confinement of the inquiry to US seminaries may mean that the Vatican still thinks scandals are a US concoction. The investigation is likely to make our church look ridiculous.
'"Bureaucracy" is a pejorative term connoting inefficiency and waste, whereas "administration" has about it the possibility of something efficient and streamlined that comes right to the point -- which Benjamin assures me is quite likely with these apostolic visitations, which should be concluded by April.'
A touching faith in the magic of words there, Philip. And what is "the point"? To clear the seminaries of gays and of those who "suffer from homosexual impulses" (even if predominantly straight)? Recall that according to Kinsey this applies to 50 per cent of males, and that figure must be even higher in all male environments such as seminaries. In six months you hope to decimate the seminary community on the basis of inquiry into their intimate sexual psychology? The comedy is stupendous!
Recall that in the Oxford Movement there were many who denounced the Oxford Apostles as gay, effeminate etc. An inquiry might easily have believed these allegations. Presumably the present inquiry will have to rely on such third person allegations, unless it bluntly asks all the seminarians to say frankly whether they are gay or have had "homosexual impulses". Most of the seminarians are likely to give an equivocal answer, since after all priests are currently forbidden to say in public that they are gay. The entire idea of such a purge is the result of panic, very understandable panic indeed. But panic is a bad counselor.
I see that Fr. O'Leary is back to spamming these commentboxes. Six comments in just 35 minutes.
"IF THINGS ARE SO GOOD, WHY ON EARTH HAVE SUCH AN INVESTIGATION AT THIS POINT?"
If things really are so good, then there shouldn't be any objection to an apostolic visitation. Unless you're afraid they'll find out that maybe things really aren't so good. Or maybe they'll find that things aren't bad, except for in certain seminaries. Whatever, I can understand why you're so afraid of the apostolic visitation.
"CONDITION? SERIOUS PERSONALITY DISORDER? Surely this language is at least fifty years out of date?"
Truth is never out of date.
"'Catholic leaders have consistently taught that homosexual men should not be ordained to the priesthood.' Never heard of it."
I would guess that's because you don't listen to those Catholic leaders.
"'Pope John XXIII approved a formal policy to that effect, which still remains in effect.' Never heard of it."
That's apparently a reference to _Religiosorum institutio_, 2 Feb. 1961, "Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders" (Canon Law Digest, Vol. V, Bruce Publishing Co., Milwaukee, 1963). It has been widely ignored and disobeyed, to the Church's great detriment.
"If the Church really does not want the priesthood to be perceived as a gay profession then it should invite heterosexuals to join."
No, that won't solve the problem. Anti-Catholics and ignorant non-Catholics will think of the priesthood as homosexual no matter what we do. But we can actually cut down on the number of unfaithful homosexuals in the priesthood by discouraging the ordination of homosexuals. Inviting men with normal sexual affections to the priesthood is simply what the Church has always done.
"If you want to attract straight guys to the presbyterate, begin by not asking them to wear black, purple, red and white dresses."
Right. And the way to get people to stop thinking that Scotsmen molest sheep is to make them stop wearing kilts. Such profundity and wisdom.
"Other Christian churches do not have this problem at all."
Or so they would have you believe. As a former Protestant, I'll just say that they're just better at covering it up than we are, and are smaller and non-hierarchical, so lawyers can't get as much money out of them as they can from us.
"It is the neurosis of a closeted homophobic clerical caste, something with centuries-deep roots, that has got the RCC into its current embarrassing mess."
Was my ancestor Alexander Stewart, Bishop of Moray, a closeted homophobic cleric? Is that why he impregnated the mothers of his four bastard children?
"those gays who are mature, honest, and self-conscious."
You mean repentant, former homosexuals?
"Others who are in denial of their sexuality will flock to the priesthood as never before, ensuring an INCREASE in just the kind of people who get inv
"Others who are in denial of their sexuality will flock to the priesthood as never before, ensuring an INCREASE in just the kind of people who get involved in scandals."
Ah, so let's get this straight -- we let homosexuals be priests and discourage normal men from being priest, and we get a horrifying sex abuse scandal -- but if we don't let homosexuals be priests but instead encourage normal men to answer the divine call, we'll get an even worse sex abuse scandal? Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see if you have the gift of prophecy.
"The investigation is likely to make our church look ridiculous."
Yeah, well, them's the breaks. Homosexuality in the priesthood has made our church look perverted and filthy. If I had to choose between looking immoral and looking foolish, I guess I'd choose foolish.
"Recall that in the Oxford Movement there were many who denounced the Oxford Apostles as gay, effeminate etc."
Well, you know, the Oxford Movement WAS a bunch of English men, after all, so you'd have to expect people to make that kind of accusation -- the stereotype of the effeminate or homosexual-ish English man is like the stereotype of the loose French woman.
"Recall that according to Kinsey"
Your research is 50 years out of date, and Kinsey's research has long been discredited, since his information about male homosexuality came largely from male sex offenders and pedophiles and his information about female heterosexuality came largely from prostitutes.
"priests are currently forbidden to say in public that they are gay."
When were they forbidden to say that? Don't you mean to say that in the current climate it's not a good idea for homosexual priests to openly admit to their problem?
"if we don't let homosexuals be priests but instead encourage normal men to answer the divine call, we'll get an even worse sex abuse scandal? Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see if you have the gift of prophecy."
The criterion of being a "normal man" is to never have experienced same-sex attraction? Have you never experienced it?
My point, as you well know, was that the inquiry is NOT encouraging normal men to apply but is likely to increase the number of self-hating, in-denial closeted gays (or "suffering from homosexual impulses" types) in the priesthood. The web of hypocrisy will be more tightly woven.
Homosexuality in the priesthood is a rich field of inquiry -- Sipe and Jordan are merely scratching its surface. If the inquiry were really a search for dialogue and clarity I would be delighted with it. But all the signs are that it is about as ill-planned and as driven by meretricious ideology as the US misadventure in Iraq.
It reminds me strongly of the purging of those of Jewish descent from the Jesuits in 16th century Spain, though one of their greatest Generals had been Jewish.
It is limpieza de sangre all over again!
The church is giving the world lessons in bigotry and discrimination. That not only makes us look ridiculous. It makes us look unevangelical.
Potter, priests have been suspended for openly saying that they are gay, in Spain for example. A celibate gay curently writes in America magazine under a pseudonym as he is forbidden to say he is gay.
You are a new Catholic, and have still a lot to learn about the depths of doublethink of which good ol' mother church is capable!
Oh well, this is indeed a fascinating topic, but I have to resume normal life, returning to my university here in loveliest Japan today, and attending a performance of Wagner's glorious Meistersinger this evening. Life is large and wonderful, and these seedy, creepy, spooky ecclesiastical charades hardly merit a moment's attention from a breathing human being. So goodbye once more, Blosserites. Enjoy your symptom!
"The criterion of being a 'normal man' is to never have experienced same-sex attraction? Have you never experienced it?"
Nope, never have. From what I can tell, it's not all that common an experience, comparatively speaking.
"You are a new Catholic, and have still a lot to learn about the depths of doublethink of which good ol' mother church is capable!"
Yes, I know I'm just a young 'un, and I know I have much more to learn about many things. Perhaps I flatter myself, but I think I've got a pretty good handle on the Church teaches and policies regarding homosexuality.
"So goodbye once more, Blosserites."
Till next time, Father.
" The entire idea of such a purge is the result of panic, very understandable panic indeed. But panic is a bad counselor."
Given the rapidity of his responses, one is tempted to think that the only person suffering from panic in this situation is Fr. O'Leary.
A key item that's missing from this conversation is what the criterion are for someone to be considered a homosexual. The way I've heard it explained is that one who adopts the gay lifestyle as their own without hope of normalcy, is a homosexual.
Considering that sexual relations are right out in a celibate priesthood, the complaints will likely center on the "but if he's celibate, what does it matter if he's gay?" question, I think. Here the matter boils down to a subjective difference between two men who don't have sex and thus, do not sin objectively. Let the only difference be that of the one who, recognizing certain tendencies in his own thinking, prays and guards his heart hoping for God to change him. The other has resigned himself to his tendencies and embraced what he considers his nature without hope of change.
This situation is analogous to couples practicing NFP for selfish reasons and those practicing NFP for grave reasons. Neither are sinning in any quantifiable sense, and yet, one couple is celebrating their sexual life as God intended it and the other couple is denying the gift of fertility.
In the aforementioned situation, one priest is bearing a cross with a hope for God's power to heal. The other is bearing a cross (for he too is celibate) without hope for God's power to heal. One realizes that his tendencies aren't what God intended for men and women and knows that he shall be healed eventually, even if it takes the resurrection to do so. The other, however, has accepted his tendencies and no longer hopes to have a normal state of affairs in his desires. On the outside, the difference appears non-existent, yet they are worlds apart.
Can we honestly hope that an apostolic visit will reveal the hearts of these two men who, outwardly, are identical? Of course not. Such probings are likely beyond the ability of men to undertake with any hope for success. Can we hope that these apostolic visits will provide a means of educating people of the distinction I outline above? Yes.
Above all, the witness of those who have overcome homosexual attraction is a witness to God's power to heal. I happen to know several individuals who have overcome these issues with prayer and faith; it is a possibility. The denial of God's power to heal amounts to a denial of God Himself in my opinion. It is a message of the world that people of faith ought to reject outright. It is never a question of "can God heal me?" It's always a question of "will I ask and let God heal me?"
My 2 cents.
Mike
Fr Joe,
Seeing as you are so preoccupied with the Church's maltreatment of the Jews, perhaps you should reconsider your choice of operas. It is quite unseemly for a fellow of your exquisite sensibilities to be seen enjoying the "glorious" work of a notorious anti-semite.
50 years out of date, indeed. The removal of homosexuality from the list of mental disorders had nothing to do with objective science. It was completely politics and the result of feministic/neoMarxism gaining currency in a supposed branch of science.
Every pro-homosexual study has suffered from researcher bias and is unreliable.
Mike J gives a fascinating insight into how gay seminarians and even the inquisitors will evade the obvious meaning of their brief. It's ok to be a gay seminarian as long as you feel bad about it! In fact this would make the priesthood MORE rather than LESS open to the very type of gays who are still considered by professional psychologists to be suffering from a pathology.
Will the inquisitors talk like this:
--- Have you experienced the deplorable personality disorder of samesex attraction?
--- Yes, excellency, I suffer from homosexual impulses.
--- Do you clearly recognize that this is a bad thing, a result of Original Sin, and do you look to Jesus as your Savior to release you from this condition?
--- Yes, Your Reverence, I most sincerely do, so help me God.
--- Splendid, young man. We hereby ratify that your are an exemplary candidate for the celibate priesthood and no danger to children.
On Meistersinger, I agree that Wagner was a horrible antisemite, and that the vernichtende portrayal of Beckmesser (as of Mime in Siegfried) must give us pause. In last night's performance Beckmesser reappears at the very end carrying his slate on which he has written "Nein!" in protest against the quasi-fascist concluding celebrations (only to be hustled offstage by Sachs). In another scene Beckmesser is shown gesticulating in contempt at a portrait of Wagner. The audience felt a lot of sympathy for the put-upon Beckie, who received very loud applause at the curtain call. But unlike Shakespeare's treatment of Shylock, I do no think Wagner's treatment of Beckmesser had any charity in it.
We knew you couldn't stay away, Father.
"It's ok to be a gay seminarian as long as you feel bad about it! In fact this would make the priesthood MORE rather than LESS open to the very type of gays who are still considered by professional psychologists to be suffering from a pathology."
If the Church is saying those who suffer from same-sex attraction disorder are not to be seminarians at all, then that scenario shouldn't develop too often -- even homosexuals say they who "feel bad" about their unrepentant state would be ushered out the door.
"say they who" -- I love it when my wires get crossed . . .
My apologise for being less than perfectly clear with my thoughts. I'm only an unlearned engineer so my fumblings with the swords of wit are less than precise.
The point is that to consider oneself homosexual is to deny an aspect of the human person that the Church teaches us to hold. That is, our bodies are inextricably linked to who we are as a body-soul creation and is part of our very identity. Our gender is our sex and there is no contradiction between the two. One who claims themselves to be a homosexual is denying this truth about how God has made us. They instead suggest that they are one thing trapped inside the "wrong body".
Anyone who aspires to the priesthood ought to know their faith well enough to see the problem with claiming to be a homosexual. So, those who claim to be homosexuals are not fit to the priesthood as they really should be learning the faith at a more basic level. Given we inherit the results of the fall, some men may have disordered inclinations. If they struggle with them a lot, it would be wise that they not put themselves in the near occasions of sin. This is just plain common sense. If someone is struggling with porn, they probably should avoid certain magazine racks until they can master their passions better. The key distinction I was trying to make is that some men reject the dualistic notion inherent in homosexuality and others embrace it.
Jordan has adequately answered Fr. O'Leary's complaint about repressed individuals. One would have hoped that common sense would have already done so but it seems in short supply lately. It seems a far more pastorally oriented decision that those who still struggle with this issue avoid the near occasions of sin and so it is recommended that these people should not be priests.
Of course, if one doesn't think that temptations to sin can be radically healed by God, they'll forever suspect vast populations of being merely "repressed" individuals. I'm not about to blather on about this since I'm disorganized enough already. Suffice it to say, I know such is possible from personal experience and from friends. Somehow I would have thought the transformative power of God was something universally recognized in the Catholic faith. Perhaps that is not a good assumption.
I, like all heterosexual men, am a lesbian trapped in a man's body.
Mike J seems utterly confused, but I suspect that his confusion is just the kind of fuzzy thinking that will allow gay seminarians to get off the hook in the forthcoming investigation.
Mike writes:
"One who claims themselves to be a homosexual is denying this truth about how God has made us. They instead suggest that they are one thing trapped inside the "wrong body"."
It is transsexuals who speak of the "wrong body" -- homosexuals are usually delighted with their body, as why should they not?
But note that a person attracted to the same sex would have to deny that he is homosexual, according to Mike's reasoning. To say he is homosexual would be to call God a liar. So when the apostolic visitator asks him whether or not he is homosexual he can boldly say "I am not homosexual"!
"Given we inherit the results of the fall, some men may have disordered inclinations. If they struggle with them a lot, it would be wise that they not put themselves in the near occasions of sin." But this of course has nothing to do with homosexuality, so the apostolic visitators won't need to worry about it at all!
"some men reject the dualistic notion inherent in homosexuality and others embrace it." The apostolic visitators and the Vatican itself embrace the notion of homosexuality and see it as their mission to exclude it from seminaries.
"It seems a far more pastorally oriented decision that those who still struggle with this issue avoid the near occasions of sin and so it is recommended that these people should not be priests." But as I understand it, even perfectly celibate homosexuals, who are not still struggling with an "issue", are to be excluded in the forthcoming purge.
"Of course, if one doesn't think that temptations to sin can be radically healed by God, they'll forever suspect vast populations of being merely "repressed" individuals." Of course temptations can be healed; but homosexuality as a sexual orientation lies far deeper than temptations to sexual activity; it is an intrinsic, godgiven component of the personality. To talk of "healing" this is possible to spit in the face of the Creator, as if one were to talk of healing one's blue eyes. "They are not well in their wits to whom anything that Thou hast created is displeasing" said St Augustine to the sex-hating manicheans.
"Mike J seems utterly confused, but I suspect that his confusion is just the kind of fuzzy thinking that will allow gay seminarians to get off the hook in the forthcoming investigation."
Well, you do certainly seem to have a very strong hope that homosexual seminarians will be able to make it to ordination despite the Church's discouragement. That would be bad for the homosexual seminarians and bad for the Church, but there are certainly bishops and priests who want what is bad homosexuals and bad for the Church to come to pass.
"They are not well in their wits to whom anything that Thou hast created is displeasing"
Now you add blasphemy to your heresy. God did not create sin and death, so He did not create the effects of sin and death -- and the Church says homosexuality is one of the effects of sin and death. Therefore your wresting of St. Augustine's words is a failure. It is the homosexualists, who refuse to honor God's created order, who are to be compared to the creation-hating Manichaeans, not the Catholics.
Marital sex itself was seen as tainted by Original Sin until very recently. Read Bellarmine on the filth of marriage and the need of a continent clerical caste. The Church lives and learns.
Fr O'Leary:
You say:
"In reality, the church will remain as gay as it always has been, and probably become even more hypocritical."
and you say:
"It is the neurosis of a closeted homophobic clerical caste, something with centuries-deep roots, that has got the RCC into its current embarrassing mess."
Which is the Church, gay or homophopic?
Hmmm.... I had a comment up there yesterday which has been erased apparently. Oh well. Now I really am confused.
I was only pointing out that homosexuality is not a creation of God if we examine the Creation accounts. This line has already been picked up by Jordan Potter though so I'll let him follow it.
Homosexual acts are not acts within the confines of marriage and they are never fecund. They deny the male/female complementarity required for the sacrament. It is quite beyond me how the Church's position may develop into something that accepts homosexual acts.
Not a creation if we examine the creation accounts? For that matter, there is no mention of whiskey or wine in the creation accounts either. They must be of the devil, then; or if that is too manichean for you, they must be a result of original sin.
Or what are you saying?
I note that Benjamin Blosser differs quite a lot from his dad on the status of gayness: "homosexual orientation is something which needs be addressed with regard to priestly ordination, and the matter is not, to me, altogether clear. But in my mind, to pretend that purging those with same-sex attraction from the priesthood is the same thing as purging heterodoxy from the priesthood is 'skewing the truth'. It is not clear to me that the trial of same-sex attraction and heterodoxy are the same thing, although certainly one could draw an indirect link between heterodoxy and homosexual behavior. Whatever the machinations of the 'purging-homosexuals-will-save-the-Church- crowd, my knowledge is that this is not (contra Diogenes) the mind of the Church. [THIS IS NOT THE MIND OF THE CHURCH!] My fear is that, once it becomes clear that this is not the mind of the Church (and this will become clear in a matter of weeks), this crowd will become increasingly disillusioned and frustrated at the Church." ["This crowd" are precisely those who hang out on his Dad's forum!]
"In reality, the church will remain as gay as it always has been, and probably become even more hypocritical."
and you say:
"It is the neurosis of a closeted homophobic clerical caste, something with centuries-deep roots, that has got the RCC into its current embarrassing mess."
Which is the Church, gay or homophopic?
DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT ALL CATHOLICS HAVE BEEN SCHOOLED IN HOMOPHOBIA AND THAT CATHOLIC GAYS BEGIN AS SELF-HATERS? This is the horrific tradition -- the cause of huge suffering -- that I am angry about.
In the news today, 9/22, is the announcement that the Vatican has approved the talked about statement that will (it seems) promote the disallowance of any homosexual men from studying for, or being candidates for, ordination. How much will this exacerbate the clergy crisis, and what do commentators here think will be the reaction, if any, of the sizeable portion of the priesthood which is homosexual, tho fully in observance of their vows of chastity?
"Not a creation if we examine the creation accounts? Not a creation if we examine the creation accounts? For that matter, there is no mention of whiskey or wine in the creation accounts either. They must be of the devil, then; or if that is too manichean for you, they must be a result of original sin.
Or what are you saying?"
What simple, strange and odd world you live in. If not literally stated by the Bible, it must be the devil's work! How wonderfully black and white.
I was merely echoing Jordan Potter's comment that:
"God did not create sin and death, so He did not create the effects of sin and death -- and the Church says homosexuality is one of the effects of sin and death."
Your assumption in one of your earlier posts is that homosexuality is a God given state or inclination. This opinion is at odds with the Church's teaching on the matter. The Creation accounts point to a harmonious reality wherein the sexual complementarity between man and woman figures rather prominently.
"DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT ALL CATHOLICS HAVE BEEN SCHOOLED IN HOMOPHOBIA AND THAT CATHOLIC GAYS BEGIN AS SELF-HATERS?"
Translation: the Catholic Church's doctrine about homosexuality is false.
What other doctrines of the Catholic faith do you think are false?
"['This crowd' are precisely those who hang out on his Dad's forum!]"
When it comes to mind-reading, you're an abysmal failure, Father. I don't disagree with a word that Benjamin Blosser wrote (which you quoted above).
"DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT ALL CATHOLICS HAVE BEEN SCHOOLED IN HOMOPHOBIA AND THAT CATHOLIC GAYS BEGIN AS SELF-HATERS?" Translation: the Catholic Church's doctrine about homosexuality is false. What other doctrines of the Catholic faith do you think are false?
ANSWER: the intrinsic depravity of the Jewish people, deicides and blind.
the justice of slavery.
the damnation of the vast majority of non Roman Catholics.
the right of the Pope to depose lawful rulers.
the justice of torture.
the justice of executing heretics.
the idea that Copernicism contradicts Scripture and is therefore impossible.
All of these are false doctrines.
God created heterosexuality, therefore he didn't create homosexuality?
Why not argue that God created water, therefore he didn't create wine?
They are not well in their wits to whom anything that Thous has created is displeasing.
And don't tell your gay sons and daughters that God did not create their sexuality -- that is a kind of racism directed against your own flesh and blood.
Learn this from me now, or learn it in tragic alienation from your own kids later!
rob k asks: the Vatican has approved the talked about statement that will (it seems) promote the disallowance of any homosexual men from studying for, or being candidates for, ordination. How much will this exacerbate the clergy crisis?
Answer:
I think it has already done immense damage in discouraging people from becoming priests. Who would want to join a spooky homophobic outfit?
The people on this forum sometimes say the church should purge all gays, and sometimes that it should purge all gays who are not self-hating.
What the Vatican has in mind is anybody's guess.
This is a public relations disaster of the first magnitude, and is creating immense confusion in the minds of the faithful.
Has the Vatican no media savviness? Well, when they had the JP2 show on the road it was easy going. But when they have to talk about such a delicate and difficult matter asa crackdown on gays in seminaries, it is a hard sell. They have managed to propel it onto the front pages for days, creating a whirl of rumor and counter-rumor that has almost a Katrina level of spiralling force. The spectacle of priests who feared to be named talking to the NY Times compounds the image of a clandestine, fear-ridden, hypocritical institution.
The Vatican is always lashing out in blame at others -- at liberation theologians, American liberals, gays, Indian relativists -- but it never looks to its own role in sabotaging the Catholic Church since 1968. Quis custodet ipsos custodes? The negative, fearful, neurotic mindset of Ratzinger has been throttling the Church at least since 1982, and now it is exhibiting itself in all its petty glory to the eyes of a consternated world! I am sorry for the man but at the same time feel Schadenfreude in his exhibition of the emperor wihtout clothes.
"the intrinsic depravity of the Jewish people, deicides and blind."
Not a Catholic doctrine. Never was.
"the justice of slavery."
The Church today teaches that slavery is just? And what do you mean by "slavery"?
"the damnation of the vast majority of non Roman Catholics."
Not a Catholic doctrine. Never was. We don't know for sure who is and isn't damned (except for Judas, arguably, based on what the Holy Spirit says about him). We only know that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.
"the right of the Pope to depose lawful rulers."
The Church has never claimed the Pope has a right to depose lawful rules -- only unlawful ones. There's no doubt that the Pope has that right, though he probably won't have the occasion or ability to use it for quite a long time, if ever.
"the justice of torture."
Guess it depends on what you mean by "torture." The Church now says torture is utterly out of bounds, and I don't object -- even though the Church has, so far as I can tell, never actually said what she means by "torture."
"the justice of executing heretics."
The Church does agree that Catholic states have a right to execute heretics, though I also note that the Church obviously does not want Catholic states (assuming there are any left or will ever be any again) to execute heretics any more. I for one hope we never return to executing heretics.
"the idea that Copernicism contradicts Scripture and is therefore impossible."
That is not and never was a Catholic doctrine. Your ignorance of Catholicism seems to be stupendous.
"All of these are false doctrines."
Some of them are, but the Church seems to disagree with you on other points. It appears you do not assent to the Catholic faith, which is a bad thing for any human being, but especially disastrous for Catholic priest.
"God created heterosexuality, therefore he didn't create homosexuality? Why not argue that God created water, therefore he didn't create wine?"
God created good -- He didn't create evil. Water and wine are both good, not evil. Learn it, love it, live it.
By the way, I notice that you keep saying people at this weblog are calling for a purge of all homosexuals from the priesthood and/or the Church. Care to document that assertion of yours?
"How much will this exacerbate the clergy crisis, and what do commentators here think will be the reaction, if any, of the sizeable portion of the priesthood which is homosexual, tho fully in observance of their vows of chastity?"
I doubt it will exacerbate the priest shortage. It might even help get priestly vocations to increase somewhat. I have no idea how sizeable the number of homosexual priests is (by "homosexual priests," I mean priests who suffer from, struggle successfully against, or give in to same-sex attraction disorder) -- some claim up to 75% are homosexual, which is surely way to high, others say 50%, which is almost certainly too high, others say 25%, which also seems rather high, but may be the most accurate guesstimate that's being bandied about. Anyway, contrary to what the ignorant, anti-Catholic news media would like us to believe, and what the Fr. O'Learys of the Church are hyperventilating about, there's no reason to believe the Church is about the purge faithfully celibate homosexuals from the priesthood. All she is doing is attempting to reduce the likelihood that men unfit for ordination are not ordained -- and the Church knows that most homosexual men, as well as a great number of normal men, are unfit to become priests. Barring homosexuals from the seminary will likely offend many homosexual priests, and some may leave the priesthood as a result. It is hoped that only those who refuse to abide by their vows of celibacy, or are incapable of abiding by their vows, will leave the priesthood -- and/or those who don't believe and teach the Catholic faith. But it's possible that some celibate homosexual orthodox priests may become demoralised and leave the priesthood too -- hopefully there won't be too many of those to leave.
there's no reason to believe the Church is about the purge faithfully celibate homosexuals from the priesthood
YOU say that buy an ARCHBISHOP who claimed to be in the know said quite the opposite. Are you even following the story?
Ratzinger's recent documents on homosexuality are erected by you into irreformable church doctrine and equally powerful documents that seem to say the things I listed above are given a benign retrospective interpretation. When the Church apologizes to gays you will say that the church never really claimed that their sexuality was objectively disordered, or as you now seem to say "evil"!
I see you have a soft spot for torture and slavery and the execution of heretics. What kind of mental prison are you living in?
It is hoped that only those who refuse to abide by their vows of celibacy, or are incapable of abiding by their vows, will leave the priesthood -- and/or those who don't believe and teach the Catholic faith.
YOU speak for what the VATICAN hopes. What is your evidence?
Archbishop Edwin O'Brien who is supervision the seminary inquiry said that even gays who had been celibate for ten years would be discouraged from becoming priests. Do you know something this Archbishop doesn't know?
visiting your mental prison:
by "homosexual priests," I mean priests who suffer from, struggle successfully against, or give in to same-sex attraction disorder) THE WAY HETEROSEXUAL PRIESTS SUFFER FROM STRUGGLE AGAINST OR GIVE IN TO OTHER-SEX ATTRACTION DISORDER-- some claim up to 75% are homosexual, which is surely way too high, others say 50%, which is almost certainly too high, others say 25%, which also seems rather high, but may be the most accurate guesstimate that's being bandied about. HOW CAN YOU KNOW THIS? DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT THE VATICAN FORCED SOMEONE, Richard Sipe I think, TO LEAVE THE PRIESTHOOD BECAUSE HE WOULD NOT AGREE TO SUPPRESS HIS STUDIES OF THE INCIDENCE OF HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE PRIESTHOOD? You are now offering guesstimates in place of the missing info that the Vatican has kept from you, a bit like Bush not counting Iraqi casualites.
Anyway, contrary to what the ignorant, anti-Catholic news media would like us to believe, and what the Fr. O'Learys of the Church are hyperventilating about, there's no reason to believe the Church is about the purge faithfully celibate homosexuals from the priesthood. FROM SEMINARIES, if the ABP is to be believed; already ordained men will not be purged.
Barring homosexuals from the seminary will likely offend many homosexual priests, and some may leave the priesthood as a result. IT WILL ALSO OFFEND ALL HOMOSEXUAL PEOPLE, THEIR RELATIVES, AND ALL THOSE DECENTLY CONCERNED ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS AND OPPOSED TO DISCRIMINATION.
Why would anyone want to become a priest, knowing that his intimate sexual identity will be scrutinized by a bureaucracy?
"the intrinsic depravity of the Jewish people, deicides and blind."
Not a Catholic doctrine. Never was. ON GOOD FRIDAY EVERY YEAR WE PRAYED FOR "THE PERFIDIOUS JEWS" -- and that was only 40 years ago.
"the justice of slavery."
The Church today teaches that slavery is just? And what do you mean by "slavery"? THE CHURCH HAS CHANGED ITS DOCTRINE ONLY IN THE LAST CENTURY OR SO. SEE JOHN NOONAN ON THE VERY CLEAR JUSTIFICATIONS OF SLAVERY DOWN THROUGH CHURCH HISTORY.
"the damnation of the vast majority of non Roman Catholics."
READ THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE. IT IS QUITE SPECIFIC THAT THE FLAMES OF HELL ARE THE NORMAL FATE AWAITING
NON-CATHOLICS.
Not a Catholic doctrine. Never was. We don't know for sure who is and isn't damned (except for Judas, arguably, based on what the Holy Spirit says about him). YES, THAT IS PRESENT CHURCH TEACHING. We only know that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. YES, IN A BENIGN REINTERPRETATION OF FLORENCE.
"the right of the Pope to depose lawful rulers."
The Church has never claimed the Pope has a right to depose lawful rules -- only unlawful ones. BUT THE POPE DECIDED ELIZABETH I, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS AN UNLAWFUL RULER:There's no doubt that the Pope has that right, though he probably won't have the occasion or ability to use it for quite a long time, if ever. THE CHURCH CERTAINLY DOES NOT TEACH THIS TODAY.
"the justice of torture."
Guess it depends on what you mean by "torture." The Church now says torture is utterly out of bounds, and I don't object -- even though the Church has, so far as I can tell, never actually said what she means by "torture." TAKING REFUGE IN CLINTONISMS DOES NOT MASK THE FACT THAT THE CHURCH GLORIED IN TORTURE AND IN FORCING SECULAR RULERS TO USE IT (AS IN THE FRENCH MONARCHY vs suspected Cathars).
"the justice of executing heretics."
The Church does agree that Catholic states have a right to execute heretics, IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT; IT DID, BUT NOW IT DOESN'T -- READ DIGNITATIS HUMANAE though I also note that the Church obviously does not want Catholic states (assuming there are any left or will ever be any again) to execute heretics any more. I for one hope we never return to executing heretics. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF WANTING BUT OF DECLARING THE EXECUTION OF HERETICS TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY.
"the idea that Copernicism contradicts Scripture and is therefore impossible."
That is not and never was a Catholic doctrine. TRUE, BUT IT WAS THE VIEW OF BELLARMINE, THE MOST AUTHORITATIVE POSTTRIDENTINE THEOLOGIAN, GRAND INQUISITOR, AND UT UNDERLAY CENTURIES OF REPRESSION OF THE TEACHING OF COPERNICISM IN ITALY. Your ignorance of Catholicism seems to be stupendous.
"All of these are false doctrines."
Some of them are, but the Church seems to disagree with you on other points. It appears you do not assent to the Catholic faith, which is a bad thing for any human being, but especially disastrous for Cathol
What kind of Catholicism have you converted to, Potter? It seems to have made you a monster of pharisaic arrogance, as you justify torture, slavery, burnings of heretics merely because the church approved of such things in benighted days. You seem to have a great desire to confide your mind to a rightwing Master trampling on basic decency in the process.
The last question seems to be why Fr. O'Leary remains Catholic at all?
I mean, if the Church says, "I will teach you no falsehood" and then teaches false things... is she not a liar? I wouldn't want to remain in an organization that I knew lied to me... somehow I guess I couldn't trust them.
so why does Fr. O'Leary remain?
Ah... seems I'm at least a day late and a dollar short. This has mostly been hashed out in the Fr. Bo Jangles comment box.
I just can't keep up I guess.
"It seems to have made you a monster of pharisaic arrogance, as you justify torture, slavery, burnings of heretics merely because the church approved of such things in benighted days."
Telling lies about people is not a seemly thing for anyone to do, Father, least of all a Catholic priest.
I don't believe you are really interested in understanding the views of others -- you talk like you already know what people believe and why, even before you meet them or ask them.
"ON GOOD FRIDAY EVERY YEAR WE PRAYED FOR 'THE PERFIDIOUS JEWS'"
Saying that the unfaithful Jews were and are unfaithful is not the same as the extreme, ugly beliefs that many Catholics have been raised to believe about Jews through the ages.
"THE CHURCH HAS CHANGED ITS DOCTRINE ONLY IN THE LAST CENTURY OR SO."
We've gone over this before, haven't we -- Popes have been speaking out against the slave trade at least since the 1500s.
"SEE JOHN NOONAN ON THE VERY CLEAR JUSTIFICATIONS OF SLAVERY DOWN THROUGH CHURCH HISTORY."
And we're these binding magisterial statements of faith, or the theological opinions of their authors?
"READ THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE. IT IS QUITE SPECIFIC THAT THE FLAMES OF HELL ARE THE NORMAL FATE AWAITING
NON-CATHOLICS."
I've read it already -- and it's true that, as a rule, those outside the visible communion of the Catholic Church will suffer hell. But that doesn't mean the Church believes or teaches (or believed and taught) that all non-Catholics automatically, definitely, infallibly go to hell.
"BUT THE POPE DECIDED ELIZABETH I, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS AN UNLAWFUL RULER"
Based on English law back then, there's a pretty good case to be made that Elizabeth Tudor, who was a bastard in the views of Catholics, had no right to rule. England at that time was be forcibly transformed into a Protestant state, so it's hardly to be surprised that the English Catholics would not be too happy about the Protestant revolution that was overturning the laws and customs of their land.
"THE CHURCH CERTAINLY DOES NOT TEACH THIS TODAY."
The Church has no occasion to say anything about it one way or the other. But I'm not aware of a single binding magisterial statement that rescinds this teaching. It's an inevitable conclusion to reach from the doctrine that the Pope is the Vicar, or "prime minister," as it were, of the King of the Universe.
"the justice of torture."
"TAKING REFUGE IN CLINTONISMS DOES NOT MASK THE FACT THAT THE CHURCH GLORIED IN TORTURE AND IN FORCING SECULAR RULERS TO USE IT (AS IN THE FRENCH MONARCHY vs suspected Cathars)."
You must not know or understand much about medieval history if you think the Church had to force (or was even capable of forcing) secular rulers to use torture. It was the Church that kept trying to put limits on the use of torture. Anyway, you still haven't dealt with the fact that the Church has never really explained what torture is. It's all well and good t
It's all well and good to object to something, but you've got to explain what it is you're objecting to. When trying to find out and to understand what the Church teaches, you've got to listen to all that she says, and has had to say, not just the latest thing she's said. Now, go ahead and huff and puff about me supposedly justifying torture -- if you don't want to grapple with uncomfortable facts, be my guest.
"IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT; IT DID, BUT NOW IT DOESN'T -- READ DIGNITATIS HUMANAE"
I've read it, and I know it must be read within the tradition of the Church, not in contradiction to it.
"IT IS NOT A MATTER OF WANTING BUT OF DECLARING THE EXECUTION OF HERETICS TO BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH HUMAN DIGNITY."
We Catholics can't do that, because then we'd be guilty of magisterially declaring that executing heretics is not contrary to God's commandments, and then turning around and doing the exact opposite -- and contradicting ourselves like that would show that we aren't who we've always claimed to be. There's hardly any point in being a Catholic in that scenario.
It is to be hoped that, if we Catholics ever get off our rear-ends and succeed in re-converting the West to the Apostolic Faith, the Catholic states of that hypothetical future do not return to the execution of heretics -- some rights are better not being used at all.
"TRUE, BUT IT WAS THE VIEW OF BELLARMINE, THE MOST AUTHORITATIVE POSTTRIDENTINE THEOLOGIAN, GRAND INQUISITOR, AND IT UNDERLAY CENTURIES OF REPRESSION OF THE TEACHING OF COPERNICISM IN ITALY."
Okay, so you've conceded that this was not and is not a Catholic doctrine -- so you shouldn't have included it in the list of Catholic doctrines that you think are false.
The Church did not seek to restrain torture in regard to the French monarchy and the Cathars, but rather pressurized the monarchy into using torture.
You now say "it's true that, as a rule, those outside the visible communion of the Catholic Church will suffer hell." Whereas earlier you denied that the church ever taught that the vast majority of non Catholics go to hell. You say "that doesn't mean the Church believes or teaches (or believed and taught) that all non-Catholics automatically, definitely, infallibly go to hell" -- of course I never claimed that it did; baptism of desire left a small loophole.
Bellarmine's views on Copernicus were about as authoritative as Ratzinger's on homosexuality; consider the Roman documents of 1616 and 1633.
Saying that the Jews, as a people, are perfidious is only the tip of an iceberg of Roman theology of Judaism that the Church is now busily dismantling.
The 16th century animadversions against slavery concern only a situation arising in the New World and fall far short of a condemnation of slavery as such.
You can argue that God commands the execution of heretics -- but that is still not the teaching of the Church today.
Please explain why you say I am lying when I say you tolerate torture, slavery and the execution of heretics? I fail to see that you have formulated any moral objection to these practices. In fact you seem to say that to correct former church attitudes on these issues would rob being a catholic of its point.
I don't see any concern here with the mind of the church.
The church never explained what torture is? I think Galileo understood very well when they showed him the instruments they threatened to use unless he recanted -- which he promptly did.
Based on English law back then, there's a pretty good case to be made that Elizabeth Tudor, who was a bastard in the views of Catholics, had no right to rule.
THERE IS AN EQUALLY GOOD CASE THE GEORGE BUSH STOLE THE 2000 ELECTION -- WOULD THE CHURCH BE ENTITLED TO DEPOSE HIM?
England at that time was be forcibly transformed into a Protestant state, so it's hardly to be surprised that the English Catholics would not be too happy about the Protestant revolution that was overturning the laws and customs of their land. NATURALLY. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE POPE HAS OBJECTIVELY THE RIGHT TO DEPOSE RULERS, AS YOU CLAIM. THE POPE CAN USE MORAL PRESSURE AGAINST TYRANTS, AS IN OUTCRIES AGAINST STALIN, MAO OR HITLER. BUT NO 20th CENTURY POPE MADE THE FAINTEST ALLUSION TO AN AUTHORITY TO DEPOSE THEM. YOU ARE LIVING IN THE MIDDLE AGES, OUT OF TOUCH WITH THE LIVING CHURCH OF TODAY.
Jordan Potter, you are totally inconsistent in your accounts of the seminary crackdown. Your first post talks of discouraging the ordination of homosexuals, then you say only bad homosexuals who won't be celibate are to be targeted, despite the fact that the archbishop in charge of the visitation said that even homosexuals who have a proven record of celibate living are to be weeded out.
It is also incorrect to say that the Church had no power to force states to execute heretics and to torture suspected heretics. Such institutions as the interdicts and crusades were used against recalcitrant states.
Here is an account of papal pressure on the English monarchy to use torture:
'A few Templars managed to flee to England, where torture was not legal. This made it impossible to obtain what Pope Clement called "true evidence", meaning evidence extorted by torture. The pope wrote to King Edward II demanding that the Templars be arrested and tortured. Otherwise, Edward and his court would be excommunicated as impeders of the Inquisition. As a bribe, Edward was offered a Plenary Indulgence for all his past sins. Finally he permitted papal judges to torture the Templars, changing the English Law "out of reverence for the Holy See". The indispensable utility of torture was thus established, and "the success of the extermination of the Templars set the patterns for the subsequent persecution of witches".'
Scholars have tried to determine the truth, if any, of the charges against the Templars. Most agree that the Templars "had adopted some of the mysterious tenets of the eastern Gnostics". Their alleged idol Baphomet may have been the Triple Head of Wisdom pictured on the arms of the orders' founder, in the form of three black Saracen heads. On the other hand, no idol of Baphomet was ever found in the Templars houses or shrines, though these were seized and sealed immediately.
Templars were
November 03, 1265: Clement IV confirms the policy of using torture to elicit confessions, first authorized by Pope Innocent IV in his Bull Ad exstirpanda and earlier confirmed by Pope Alexander IV in 1259. In Ad exstirpanda Innocent IV wrote: "When those adjudged guilty of heresy have been given up to the civil power by the bishop or his representative, or the Inquisition, the podest or chief magistrate of the city shall take them at once, and shall, within five days at the most, execute the laws made against them. " Innocent IV had also ordered that this Bull and corresponding regulations of Frederick II be entered in every city among the municipal statutes under pain of excommunication, a punishment also visited on those who failed to follow the papal and imperial decrees.
Pope Alexander III (1105? - 1181, pope 1159 - 1181) said in an encyclical letter that confessions should not be forced by torture. His successors took it upon themselves to explain that what Alexander really meant was that torture must not be used against clergymen by lay persons; but it could be used by the clergy against laymen. When Pope Innocent IV (1200? - 1254, pope 1243 - 1254) adopted torture for ecclesiastical trials, he said it should "stop short of loss of life or limb," but this was a mere formality, since limbs were broken or crushed routinely in the torture chamber. When a victim died under torture, inquisitors were authorized by Pope Urban IV (died 1264, pope (1261 - 64) to absolve each other from guilt, to be innocent in the sight of God.16
Many semantic devices were used to convey an official impression that the inquisitors were not monsters of cruelty. Records often said confessions were given freely, sine tortura et extra locum torturae - "without torture and even out of sight of the instruments of torture." This meant that after the victims were tortured, they were carried into another room and given the choice of confessing "freely" or being taken back to the torture chamber.17
When victims managed to kill themselves in prison, or died of their injuries, they were said to have been slain by the devil. One victim who succeeded in cutting his own throat was described by Friar Guazzo as "tempted by a demon," which carried away his soul, "for so did Divine Justice dispose."18 Few victims were allowed an opportunity to kill themselves, for they were closely chained at night; but they could easily be devoured by the rats and other prison-infesting vermin attracted by the smell of blood and suppurating wounds.19
Most victims pleaded for death sooner or later, but pious ones were further tormented by visions of the hellfire that awaited them, dying with lies on their lips. A housewife named Rebecca Lemp sent letters from prison to her husband and six children, showing radical alterations in her attitude before and after torture. At first she was confident: "My dearly beloved Husband, be not troubled. Were I to be charged by thousands of accusations, I am innocent, else may all the demons in hell come and tear me to pieces. Were they to pulverize me, cut me in a thousand pieces, I could riot confess anything. Therefore do not be alarmed; before my conscience and before my soul I am innocent. Will I be tortured? I don't believe it, since I am not guilty of anything."
After she had been tortured five times, and had confessed every enormity her tormentors suggested to her, Rebecca wrote again to her husband: "0 thou, the chosen of my heart, must I be parted from thee, though entirely innocent? If so, may God be followed throughout eternity by my reproaches. They force one and make one confess; they have so tortured me . . . Husband, send me something that I may die, or I must expire under the torture . . . Send
"Jordan Potter, you are totally inconsistent in your accounts of the seminary crackdown. Your first post talks of discouraging the ordination of homosexuals, then you say only bad homosexuals who won't be celibate are to be targeted, despite the fact that the archbishop in charge of the visitation said that even homosexuals who have a proven record of celibate living are to be weeded out."
Read more carefully. I did not say anything about wanting to get rid of faithful priests who may have a problem with same-sex attraction. I do agree, however, that homosexuals should not as a rule be ordained, and that men and women who suffer from this disorder need healing, and are called to chastity -- that means no homosexual activity whatsoever.
"It is also incorrect to say that the Church had no power to force states to execute heretics and to torture suspected heretics. Such institutions as the interdicts and crusades were used against recalcitrant states."
Sorry, but the Church in the Middle Ages had enough trouble trying to maintain its own integrity against the State -- she just wasn't in any position to coerce states the way you describe. Interdict worked when the people or some important nobles were able to cause enough trouble to get the king or emperor to relent -- though there are no cases of interdict or crusade ever being used to force European states to start killing and torturing heretics. Indeed, as I said, the Church did not need to convince the states back then to torture and kill anyone -- rather, she often had to tell them to ease back on their predilection for torture and killing.
As for your information on the Church's past approval and use of torture, I'm familiar with some of that information. What's your source? It reads more like propaganda or polemic than simple history.
Sorry, those last two posts were from me.
Oh, so now you say that you are not saying what no one ever said anyone said -- that the Vatican wants to weed out priests. And you agree that the Vatican wants to read out gay seminarians even if celibate and chaste. Yet you pounced on me for saying just that. What confusion!
"the Church in the Middle Ages had enough trouble trying to maintain its own integrity against the State -- she just wasn't in any position to coerce states the way you describe." The Church maintained and expanded the Papal States, as well as church privileges in all other States.
"Interdict worked when the people or some important nobles were able to cause enough trouble to get the king or emperor to relent -- though there are no cases of interdict or crusade ever being used to force European states to start killing and torturing heretics."
Interdict meant the refusal of the sacraments to entire cities. The last interdict was directed against Venice around 1600 and was resisted by Paolo Sarpi, counselor of the State of Venice and author of the Istoria dell'Interdetto. Crusades were directed against several European States, notably against Frederick II of Sicily. Whether torture of heretics was a specific demand of any such crusade or interdict I don't know
but the cited case of the English monarchy, which is a well known one, involved the effective use of spiritual threats and bribes by Rome.
" Indeed, as I said, the Church did not need to convince the states back then to torture and kill anyone -- rather, she often had to tell them to ease back on their predilection for torture and killing." Not true in the cited case. Torture and killing were just as much part of the Papal States polity as of any other country -- or have you evidence to the contrary? Capital punishment was part of the Vatican State's legal code until the last century -- for the crime of attempted assassination of the Pope for example.
The Pope did indeed pressurize the English monarchy to use torture, in order to obtain more perfect justice in bringing heresy to light -- this means, apparently, that the Pope is at the very origin of the practice of torture in England.
Naturally, the Pope approved the tortures and executions of the reign of Mary Tudor, and one of the grounds of the papal excommunication of Elizabeth I may well have been her refusal to continue to use such means against Protestants.
The point is that the church's attitude to torture (as to slavery and religious liberty) in the past is in total opposition to its view of these are incompatible with human dignity now.
Need I add that the Church was an ardent supported and practitioner of the execution of "sodomites" -- some of this tradition lives on in Ratzinger's hangman attitude to gays today. Here a reform is needed -- with the customary apologies and repentence.
Telling is the fact that one of the first things Catholic missioners did in India and the Philippines was to introduce the Inquisition which burnt at the stake persons guilty of the following crimes: protestantizing, judaizing, hinduizing, sodomy, and which imprisoned those guilty of criticizing the Inquisition.
Fr. O'Leary, you've opened the eyes of all involved. You must surely believe that the Church is reprobate; this is plain to see for everyone who has read your posts here.
Again there's the simple question:
Why do you stay in the Catholic Church if she is proving herself beyond redemption by your lights?
"one of the grounds of the papal excommunication of Elizabeth I may well have been her refusal to continue to use such means against Protestants."
She didn't mind using such means against Catholics (and any non-Anglican who she thought might raise a ruckus).
"Interdict meant the refusal of the sacraments to entire cities. The last interdict was directed against Venice around 1600 and was resisted by Paolo Sarpi, counselor of the State of Venice and author of the Istoria dell'Interdetto."
Interdict wasn't just used against cities -- as I recall, it was also used against kingdoms. Also, I think the last time a bishop threatened an interdict was in Malta in the early 1960s, when the Socialists were in danger of taking over Malta and imposing their erroneous, pernicious political ideology and system on the island. But I don't remember if the interdict was actually imposed, or merely threatened. I think it was just a threat, and the threat apparently had its desired effect, and the Socialists did not win the elections that year.
"Oh, so now you say that you are not saying what no one ever said anyone said -- that the Vatican wants to weed out priests."
No, I am saying that I did not say what you said I said they said that you said is the worst thing anyone could ever say.
There -- try and top THAT for sheer lack of parsibility! Ha!
Mike J, I do not believe that the Church is corrupt beyond redemption. Surely you must have noticed that most of the evils I mentioned have been corrected, partly as a result of the Reformation, and partly as a result of a more enlightened spirit spreading over three centuries and culminating in Vatican II.
Of course ECCLESIA SEMPER REFORMANDA and there are aspects of church practice and teaching today that still require correction. But I see that correction as coming quickly.
I also think the present problems with the liturgy will be solved when we learn from Anglicans the importance of scriptural culture, well-prepared sermons, respect for beauty of language, decoration and music, and above all the joy of lay participation in the liturgy. The headaches of the English speaking Roman Catholic Church where liturgy is concerned are UNKNOWN in the English speaking Anglican Communion (who probably use Latin more than the RCC does, knowing its aesthetic and contemplative virtues).
Philip:
Could you impose some quantity/quality standard on the posts here. Honestly, to read the nonsense of Father O'Leary and the increasingly longwinded reprises of others is to take time off from purgatory.
But Chris, doing our purgatory now is a good thing, right?
Point taken. Rant on.
On the other hand, I suppose hair shirts and the discipline might be easier penances, eh?
Wow,
I love to come upon a blog where my own opinions are being hotly debated.
What is essential about the forthcoming Vatican teaching, my friends, is not your or my opinion, nor even the opinion of the Holy See. What is important, at least in the minds of the American episcopacy, is to what extent the document will constitute binding policy.
It may hoot and holler about gays in the priesthood. But so long it does not compel a bishop to forbid ordination to a man with same-sex attraction, all American bishops will sigh in relief.
Two daring suggestions, which, please note, you heard here first. (1) It will not do so. (2) It should not do so.
Once this happens, please feel free to ask me why, on both accounts.
Sincerely,
1. Why? 2. Why?
from exiledcatholic blogspot
Nonetheless, I believe you are right, Nathan. The Vatican doesn't like me because I am gay. The fact that I chose to devote myself to the service of the church as a vowed religious and a priest for over a quarter of a century and that I was faithful to my commitments makes no difference. I am here, I'm queer and they would rather not know that. I left because it was becoming more obvious that the attitude towards gays has been hardening and I could no longer pretend that I was in agreement with what the church leaders were expecting me to say.
Most gay clergy will probably opt not to speak of it and so avoid the personal cognitive dissonance. Qui tacet consentii as we used to say in the days of Latin. Silence may not be consent under the law, but the law is not always the highest principle for behavior. I know many highly-principled gay men who will choose silence, though, so that they can continue to minister to God's people as God has called them to do. What a shame that the hierarchy puts them in this painful position.
another correspondent:
I am proud to be Catholic, but I feel that a good Catholic has a duty to listen to both the magisterium and his or her own conscience. The duty to conscience is as much a part of our Tradition as is the duty to the hierarchy.
If you read through Nathan's posts, you will find a great open-mindedness to the ideas of the pope and our more conservative Catholic brothers and sisters. I wish everyone in the church, from left, right, and in the middle, were so willing to heal the divisions among us.
Nathan responds:
I agree with you that the Church would be much healthier if Pope Benedict and all of the clergy could accept their sexuality as part of themselves that God created and found good. For all of their platitudes, I don't believe for a minute that they've done that. Pope Benedict XVI is an Augustinian and still has the very negative view of human sexuality that St. Augustine put forth; in fact, the whole Western Church is infested with this Augustinian view of sexuality, and that's a large part of the problem.
I disagree that this document would be uncharacteristic of this pope. As prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he led Pope John Paul II's efforts to alienate queer Catholics. He perfected it as a form of ecclesiastical art. How is a new way of alienating queer Catholics going to be uncharacteristic of him?
I agree that the Church has put gay clergy in a painful situation, and clearly the Church doesn't care that it has done this. It's very sad.
David -- I simply think you're wrong. I don't know how else to put it, and anything else I say would just be extraneous. But you didn't offend me and I'm not angered by what you said.
J. Nickelsen -- You, on the other hand, have pissed me off mightily. I used the word "proud" once in my little bio, using the words "blessed," "thrilled," and "happy" the oth
But I can see how these words would totally disappear from your radar screen, or perhaps you were blinded by them. I know that for some who have so immersed themselves in Bad News, the joy of the Good News is a little bit hard to take. I'm sorry that's how it is for you. I pity you.
Liam to Nathan:
I understand your reaction very well. J. insulted you by telling you to leave our Church, and he insulted our Church by suggesting one of its "basic" premises was the pathological hatred of at least ten percent of humanity (at least that seems to be what he was implying).
I was impressed and challenged by your earlier post about liberal and conservative Catholics. I think there is a broad spectrum of approaches to being Catholic inside and outside of this country, and I don't believe everybody falls into one of two camps. Still, there are a lot of people, like J. apparently, who are more or less conservative and with whom dialogue seems difficult, if not impossible. Like J., their first instinct is to exclude. If someone doesn't slavishly follow every point a certain political program, they are not Catholic and there is no reason for discussion. The political program in question is similar but not identical to that of the Roman Curia. It seems that its points intersect in some way or another with sexuality and gender (attitudes towards gays, birth control, women priests, married priests, etc.). The social aspect of the Church's teaching (the death penalty, opposition to racism and poverty, the war in Iraq) seems less important to them.
As I said, their reaction to efforts of dialogue is exclusion. They use the dirty word "Protestant" (despite the ecumenical efforts of the Church since Vatican II). They deny our even identity as Catholics. One woman on a Catholic chat told me that since I did not agree with the pope in everything, I was a "fallen Catholic," and could only take the sacraments "at great risk." When they speak amongst themselves, their language is hateful. They use the word "heresy" at the drop of a hat. Nathan, I went to the link your provided to the Catholic World News service about the ban of gay seminarians and masochistically read the comments. How could anyone who has read the Gospel talk like that about their fellow human beings?
Still, I recognize them as Catholics, which is more than they do for me. This bitter separation in the Church pains me greatly, but is there really a chance for dialogue? Do we have any tools for healing besides prayer?
another:
One of my students, as we got on the topic of gay marriage and the latest seminary thing, raised the question of excluding them from being priests: "Don't they talk about having a shortage of priests? Why not let someone who wants to be one? And really, wouldn't a gay person have to want it MORE to try it despite the treatment they'd receive -- and thus be a better candidate?"
I started skimming the comments as they got more involved,
I started skimming the comments as they got more involved, but saw enough to get a sense of what was being said. What I have read of your blog and your comments echoes what my student said. If anything, we should be impressed at your dedication to stay with the Church as opposed to telling you to "leave already" -- I'm sure you don't need US to suggest leaving as an option. The fact that you're still here speaks volumes to what the Church means to you (and how the Church is bigger than just this single issue).
Nathan said...
Since discovering that the Vatican would indeed aggressively pursue its agenda of purging gay men from Catholic seminaries, I've been thinking about what all of it means. When first hearing about it, of course, I concluded rather quickly that it meant that Pope Benedict XVI and the world's bishops are a bunch of (insert your favorite expletive here). I have not disavowed that conclusion, necessarily, but I have moved beyond it to other, perhaps less vitriolic conclusions.
Let me clear: I believe that the Vatican has decided to purge gay men from seminaries and keep new gay men from entering simply because the Vatican doesn't like us. The Vatican doesn't like any of us -- not those of us who enter into loving (and sexual) relationships, and not those of who accept the Vatican's repressive vision for our lives and choose to live a lifetime of loneliness and celibacy. Of course, that's not what the Vatican's going to say when it explains to the faithful why it has chosen to keep gay men out of Catholic seminaries. Instead, according to those who are in the know, the Vatican will say that it is doing this for the spiritual welfare of gay men. Apparently, living in seminary represents too much of an obstacle to chastity for us, and therefore the Vatican must keep us out of the seminary for our own good.
I'm not the only one who has a problem with this rationale. The most notable person who also has a problem with it is David Morrison, who is one of those gay Catholic men who have accepted the Vatican's vision of chastity for him. David is concerned, as he should be, that this new policy reflects a subtle shift in Catholic teaching, from the condemnation of people's behavior to the condemnation of people. David writes that this "will be a document more to be mourned than celebrated." I couldn't agree more.
Aside from the fact that this is blatant bigotry, the practical implications of this new policy and its justification are disturbing. It does, indeed, contradict previous magisterial teaching. Like this one:
What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well (Congregation for the Doctrine of the
What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behavior of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, #11).
This teaching by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is used to let us queer folks know that whenever we express our love for one another in a sexual way, we are indeed committing a mortal sin that will damn us to hell for eternity. Be that as it may, the teaching is essentially true, even if it is warped for the magisterium's agenda. It is true in that our sexual behavior isn't compulsive; we don't have some sort of disease that compels us to have sex with members of the same gender, leaving our sexual behavior beyond our control. That's precisely why the ban on gay seminarians is so disturbing. It implies that gay men cannot control our sexual appetites as straight men can, that our sexual behavior is compulsive, and that we must be protected from our compulsive tendency to commit sexual sin. We cannot be thrust into the all-male environment of the seminary; the temptation will be too much for us, too much for gay men who are unable to control ourselves.
It's interesting that the man who wrote the document I've just referenced is now the pope, and that he is, in effect, ignoring his own teaching. He wrote to the bishops of the Catholic Church that they must not perceive our sexual behavior as compulsive, but he is doing exactly that by assuming that we cannot commit ourselves to celibacy as seminarians and priests.
I mentioned that the practical implications of this view are disturbing. They're disturbing because, when followed to their logical conclusion, the implications of this view have the capacity to restrict gays and lesbians far beyond Catholic seminaries. If gays and lesbians are unable to control our apparently compulsive sexual behavior in the seminary, are we going to be able to control our supposedly compulsive inclinations in college dormitories? Will the next thing coming from the Congregation for Catholic Education be a ban on gay men and lesbians living with people of the same gender at Catholic colleges and university? How about high school gym class and sports? Will one of the next edicts coming from the Congregation for Catholic Education prohibit gay and lesbian boys and girls from changing clothes with people of the same gender for gym class and sports activities in Catholic schools? If the Congregation for Catholic Education intends to follow its reasoning to its necessary conclusion, then these developments will come about.
Perhaps we'll have our own drinking fountain, as well. Most rational people, incl
Perhaps we'll have our own drinking fountain, as well. Most rational people, including, I'd bet, most Catholic conservatives, would never think of telling gay and lesbian young adults that they cannot live in college dormitories. They would never think of telling gay and lesbian young adults that they can't participate in gym class or sports activities. They would say that such would be discrimination, even segregation. And they would be right. That's rather the point, isn't it? If this is segregation when followed to its logical conclusion, then it is segregation at its beginning point. It does not magically become segregation at its final point; rather, it is segregation from the beginning, it just isn't as easily identifiable at the beginning as it is at the end. Keeping us out of Catholic seminaries because of our implied sexual compulsion is just as discriminatory as keeping us out of dormitories, gym classes, and sports activities. It is segregation, based on the fact that we are different, and based on the fact that the authorities are revolted by our otherness. It's as simple as that. What the Vatican is doing now is not just analogous to what we did in the South prior to the Civil Rights Era; rather, it's the exact same thing.
posted by Nathan at 8:34 PM on Sep 28 2005
"What the Vatican is doing now is not just analogous to what we did in the South prior to the Civil Rights Era; rather, it's the exact same thing."
So he's saying that being of African descent is instrisically disordered and the result of original sin? How filthily racist of him. Surely he know how offensive his language is to African-Americans -- or does he?
No, he is saying that brutal homophobes use the same logic to put gays down as brutal racists did to put blacks down. Strange you didn't get that.
Oh, I know what his point was. It's balderdash, but I got his point.
My point, however, is that since being black isn't the result of original sin, it's ridiculous to compare opposition to homosexuality to racism and persecution of blacks.
It's not strange that you didn't get that, though.
Being black was once considered the result of original sin and slavery was defended on New Testament grounds. Blacks took the Bible out of their white masters' hands and found in it a message of equality and liberation.
Gays are doing exactly the same thing now, and Potter et al. do not like it one bit.
That's because the New Testament contains nothing about blacks being subhuman or intrinsically evil -- it says the exact opposite. Unfortunately for the homosexualists, the New Testament does say that homosexuality is sinful. The New Testament contains the foundation for the Church's doctrine that we should not enslave one another, but there is nothing in the New Testament to support the modern, perverted opinion that we should not regard homosexuality as morally disordered and the result of original sin.
I, of course, am merely repeating what Jesus and the Church have always said and continue to say about this subject, whereas you reject the truth and want us to accept damnable heresies. You say the Church's faith is bigoted and hateful, because you disagree with the Church's doctrine that slavery is wrong -- for you are willingly enslaved to the spirit of this age.
The New Testament clearly supports slavery -- or so it was argued by anti-abolitionists.
The New Testament does not clearly condemn homosexuality -- or so it is argued by those who plead for the liberation of gays from millennial oppression.
You did read the pieces by Robin Scrogg and Walter Wink that I posted a long time ago, didn't you? If not, search for them on Google.
The Bible is a racist's handbook and a homophobe's handbook, as you have proved. But that is the Bible read fundamentalistically as a letter that kills, not read in light of Christ.
And yet the uncomfortable facts (for you) remains that I agree with the Catholic faith and you do not, and that I read Holy Scripture in the light of Christ and you do not. Your Christ is not the Christ who heads the Holy Catholic Church.
Commenting by HaloScan
