When you start going down hill, it's easy for someone to keep pulling you that way. Why stop here when down there is just more of the same? So it's a little darker and a little steeper -- buck up! God is doing a new thing! And etc. ad nauseum.
John, have you noticed that this also coincides with individuals becoming double-minded, criticizing the Church's moral teaching, ceasing to speak with favor of God the Father, and appealing with increasing frequency to an amorphous "holy spirit" as the inspiration and justification for their direction?
Professor,
Yeah, I've heard a lot of folks say that they were being "lead by the spirit," but they never seem to say which one.
Unable to save comment (key failed)
The Christian churches are discerning a history of sin in their relations to the gay members of their flock over the centuries.
In a similar way we have discerned very comparable structures of sin in our relations to Jews and people of non-white races.
Such recognition of sin has in the past often prompted reactions from those who would abort the process of discernment, reactions which have lurched toward schism.
Let us listen carefully to what the Spirit (of Christ) is saying to the churches.
Before reaching for the letter which kills, which is fundamentalism, remember how such use of scriptural texts furnished grounds for hating and killing Jews over the centuries.
Before citing John Chrysostom's diatribes against gays let us recall his diatribes against Jews, at which we now wince in shame.
Here we go,,,
night is day and darkness is light...
SVII,
Can you please clarify for me what you think the Church's teaching on homosexuality should be.
Thanks.
That homosexuality is part of God's good creation, even if in some respects it may be incomplete or problematic.
That "the natural right to marry" (Pius XI) can be enjoyed in an analogical sense by gay couples, who can produce in a certain degree the three goods of marriage: fides, proles, sacramentum -- that is they can be witnesses to fidelity, creativity and the love of Christ for his Church.
I do not see the need for the church to provide a complete casuistic covering all aspects of gay experience or behavior. Nor do I ask the church to bless all of it, to be sure. It should hold up the positive biblical values and leave it to the conscience of individual, community and society how these values are to be realized.
"The Christian churches are discerning a history of sin ..."
"Let us listen carefully to what the Spirit (of Christ) is saying to the churches."
I think the a propos question here is what is the heuristic by which Fr. O'Leary is proposing to identify what is "sin" and what is the "Spirit (of Christ)" here. To the Nazi theologians (Kittel and Hirsch) the "Spirit of Christ" was the Spirit of National Socialism. To some Michael Moore agitprop dupes, the "Spirit of Christ" might come closer to sympathy with the aims of the Islamic jihad against traditional western values than anything you'd find in an Andy Griffith Mayberry Thanksgiving Service. Hence, it's a fair question to ask what one's standard is when one's assumptions seem to differ so radically from those of traditional Christianity and to echo so loudly the clamouring lobbies of the secular world.
Heuristic re sin -- same as the one that found sin against the Jews.
Heuristic for Spirit of Christ -- dialogue, love, understanding, rejection of hatred, prejudice -- it may be secular-sounding but it's in the NT too. And "pharisaism" is cited by the Matthean Christ as the counter-heuristic that stamps on the Spirit in stamping on human beings.
Heuristic re sin -- same as the one that found sin against the Jews.
Is that also the same as the one against red state Bush supporters and right-wing fundamentalists?
Heuristic for Spirit of Christ -- dialogue, love, understanding, rejection of hatred, prejudice ...
Does that heuristic discern the Spirit of Christ in the blue state indifference to the more-than-4000 unborn unborn children methodically dismembered and killed each day, not to mention the spiritual wasteland of contemporary liberal Christianity, which has reduced the Gospel to an echo of the best therapy session the secular world has to offer while deconstructing the biblical meaning of mortal sin that holds it in its bondage?
And "pharisaism" is the monopoly of the Christian tradition that views homosexuality as a disorder, as the American Psychiatric Association did until the Gay/Lesbian lobby strong-armed it into overturning its policy in the early '70s? "Pharisaism" is unknown among blue state liberals and Catholic dissenters from Church moral teaching?
Dear Professor:
Interesting comment re. "double mind." I assume you've read THE DUMB OX -- but Dr. Heinrich Rommen's book THE NATURAL LAW does a tremendous job tracing the roots and results of the legal, moral and social positivism condemned so harshly by Pius XI. It is particularly appropriate in light of yesterday, the Feast of Christ the King, intended by Pius XI to highlight the necessity for the restructuring of the social order in conformity with basic principles of natural law. All we got at Mass yesterday was an injunction by the Bishop to just be nice and give more money. I think Pius XI's vision was a little bigger than that.
1°) How can one compare being a jew and being an homosexual?
2°) Excess in history doesn't mean that today's opposite excess is gentle .
Father O'Leary:
On what grounds would you tolerate argument with your position? What I mean is that using Church documents is unacceptable to you because they come from the very attitude you condemn, and using the Bible as a source is similarly unacceptable. Would you accept a purely science-based critique of your position?
Let me illustrate what I mean. People who are firmly convinced of the rightness of Darwinian evolution won't accept that God enters the picture at all, but might accept the argument expressed thusly: when we see order we assume intelligence, for why else do we beam math signals into space for ET to find?; when we see beauty, we assume not merely intelligence by benevolence or at least benignity; Therefore, which takes more of a leap of faith: that an intelligent, benign being created everything we see, have seen or ever will see, or that all this order and beauty happened purely by "random accident", without the work of an intelligent, benign creator.
If you won't accept any criticism of your position from what the Church has always taught, therefore, on what grounds would you accept a reasoned criticism of your position?
I implore you to take this as a serious question. We've been reading St. Mark's Gospel in class this term at school. In that context I observed that part of the reason St. Mark's Gospel is constructed the way that it is is precisely because he recognized the needs of his audience, without ever denying or downplaying the truth he was charged to impart.
I see no need to discuss evolution in this context. Give a reasoned criticism of my position from Scripture or from the best of Catholic tradition if you like; I do not think quoting scriptural prooftexts is reasoned criticism.
I also welcome reasoned criticism of my own reasoned criticism of some church texts and traditions.
For instance, give a reasoned criticism of my invocation of "fides, proles, sacramentum" (Augustine) and "the natural right to marriage" (Pius XI) as I apply them to gay couples. Note that I am NOT arguing for gay marriage, only for an analogical participation in the right to and blessings of marriage by gays fortunate enough to form a couple.
Homosexual couples are analogous to married couples the way that bulemia is analogous to eating.
Analogous? Surely the way a bishop is married to his diocese is analogous to the relationship between husband and wife. Surely the relationship between Christ and His Church is analogous to that of husband and wife, but I fail to see how the relationship between two homosexuals, practicing or not, can possibly be analogous to the relationship between husband and wife. Perhaps you are using "analogous" in some sense with which I am unfamiliar. I have no difficulty engaging you in reasoned criticism, and will personally assure you that I won't engage in ad hominem attacks, whether or not you reciprocate. I'm trying to understand why you think two things which are so completely different from one another may be treated analogously.
The full text of the new document barring homosexuals from ordination has been leaked to the press. Here's an unofficial English translation.
http://www.cwnews.com/news/views...fm?
recnum=40891
Looks pretty good. If this instruction is obeyed, we'll see an end to most sexual misconduct in the priesthood, and an increase in vocations -- so you can be sure there will be numerous bishops, priests, religious, and laity who will do all they can to keep the instruction from being implemented.
Good luck! It will not be obeyed... Don't expect any major changes (see, e.g., last paragraphs of this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/
2...agewanted=print ).
Now, I'm laughing my socks off here with O'Leary's depiction of "proles" as "creativity"... Ha!Ha!Ha! Who knew rectal intercourse could be so productive!?
"How can one compare being a jew and being an homosexual?"
In respect of comparable victimhood. Both were victims of the Inquisition, of Stalin and of Hitler (yellow star for Jews, pink triangle for homosexuals).
Thanks, Mr Potter, for the latest text of the rumored Vatican document. I have some doubts about it -- it contains spelling mistakes.
Now what is very interesting is that there is already a huge industry of interpretation of this document. Dreadnought, on his website, has been arguing with me that the document does not target homosexuals as such but only people with deep homosexual tendencies, which he takes to men people with an urge to practice sexual activity incompatible with celibacy. Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, in his riposte to Gene Robinson, the episcopalian bishop, who called the document vile, suggested that it intends to weed out only those gays who would have a problem with celibacy. The Bishop of Civitavecchia, asked if the document excluded chaste gays, gave an involved answer what amounted to oneither Yes nor No.
The Vatican is playing a double game. If they want to exclude gays they should say so clearly. The reference to deep-seated tendencies, sandwiched between two other matters, is calculated to leave a nimbus of vagueness. No surprise then that it has been taken as a green light to admit gays, as before:
Rev. Mark Francis, superior general of the Clerics of Saint Viator, said the document appeared to allow the leeway to ordain a candidate who believed he was gay but also believed he could be celibate.
"You could say, 'I believe I am gay, but that the tendencies toward being gay are not deep-seated. What constitutes deep-seated homosexual tendencies? How does one judge that?"
Bishop Clark of Rochester, addressing any "gay young men who are considering a vocation to priesthood" : "We try to treat all inquiries fairly. You will be no exception."
I think this will be the normal response to the statement unless the Vatican clarifies its intention to exclude this interpretation.
It recalls how the Jesuits decided to exclude from their ranks those with Jewish blood in their veins -- even though one of their greatest Generals had been a Jew.
Of course the Catholic right are desperate to prove that this document does not exclude pious and orthodox gays, because they know it would decimate their own representation in the priesthood!
Don't miss Dreadnought's response, hot off the press, to the Vatican declaration. It is at johnheard.blogspot.com. He says that the document clearly is aimed only at people who suffer from sexual compulsions, mental illnesses or pedophilia and is in not way addressed to the average gay who wants to live a celibate life. And though I have been scoffing at this as a willful or wishful interpretation, I must admit that this may also be the line that bishops and seminary directors will take. Here is my reply to his interpretation:
"Actually, I do see a rush by bishops to interpret the document in the way you urge -- to the consternation of people like New Catholic on the Philip Blosser website.
"In fact, they are ensuring that the document will merely reaffirm the status quo. The Vatican has wittingly or unwittingly left a loophole that will become a wide door through which thousands of gay seminarians will proceed in peace as hitherto! Even if the Vatican issues a further instruction excluding the liberal interpretation embraced by the first bishops to speak up and by yourself it may come too late.
"Actually I have a sneaking admiration for your chutzpah! Now let us get to work providing the same interpretation of such documents as Persona Humana and the 1986 Halloween Letter. We already know that in pastoral practice gay couples are recognized as the best that given individuals may be able to do in their particular circumstances. Now let's scotch that "objective disorder" stuff by saying that of course it does not refer to homosexuality at all but only to people who have other disorders such as sexual compulsions.
"Why not go the whole hog and say that since the church teaches the goodness of ordered natural desire it also teaches the goodness of homosexual attraction and in no way sees it as disordered.
"Of course you could be sacked from teaching moral theology for saying any such thing.
"I foresee that this is exactly how the church wiil change its teaching and save face at the same time."
Interesting discussion among high school students -- doesn't seem like an obsession without a future -- "out of the lips of babes...". http://www.learntoquestion.com/c...ead.php?
p=14748
"Thanks, Mr Potter, for the latest text of the rumored Vatican document. I have some doubts about it -- it contains spelling mistakes."
The English translation is unofficial, and was obviously done in haste. I'm sure the document is authentic. There may be a few points where the translation is off, but overall I trust it has accurately conveyed the law and doctrine of the Church.
"I foresee that this is exactly how the church wiil change its teaching and save face at the same time."
Or so you desperately hope. Don't hold your breath waiting for that happen, though.
"Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, in his riposte to Gene Robinson, the episcopalian bishop, who called the document vile, suggested that it intends to weed out only those gays who would have a problem with celibacy."
Which, judging from human experience, would be practically all of them.
Dear spirit of vatitwo,
- "How can one compare being a jew and being an homosexual?"
- - In respect of comparable victimhood. Both were victims of the Inquisition, of Stalin and of Hitler (yellow star for Jews, pink triangle for homosexuals)."
Victimisation is the way choosen by many today to clam to have many rights and more. And if someone dare to say something, he is a victimiser ! However, nearly every human group has been a victim by another group in a century or another !
What we see now in so called civilised countries is perhaps the contrary : catholics (and other christians) will be victim of "blasphem" against homosexuality and Islam (that's already true in Islamic countris, and in Canada for homosexuality)!
And in a so excessiv way ! Sooner you'll just have to say : "I believe in Trinity", or "I believe that just a man and a woman can marry" and you'll be guilty ! Exactly as Europe hates its own roots because of a bad counscience : every thing is worth to be defended except christianism.
But that isn't really the problem here.
The problem is : if one say that we can bless homosexual unions despite the deposite of faith, why then not becoming polytheist discerning what God says to the Church today ? When do we stop ?
After all, the same book that tells us there is no God but God, is the same book that explains homosexuality is a sin.
Easy to grasp, I thought.
If not, the Gospel is a very hard thing to understand, and is not for children but for high-level-minded theologians....
But that's not "my" Gospel and the Gospel of the many. The Gospel of just an elite perhaps?
(although I don't mean that the Gospel is childish, nor that theologians are useless).
Guess the Gospel was hard to understand for the Jews and Gays burned at the stake by a loving church.
See Jesus on the Pharisees for the understanding of this.
J Potter, all gays have a problem with celibacy? Perhaps all straights too? Perhaps celibacy is the problem?
I think the bishops and rightwing bloggers who are rushing in with the misinterpretation have an obvious agenda -- to keep a place for their gay boys in seminaries and to make the Vatican look caring and reasonable. But such is the Catholic world that such interpretation can count as a "reception" of the document, especially if the Vatican does not firmly reject it. I suspect that the Vatican is quite happy to let the document be interpreted in this way, and deliberately left just a tiny scintilla of vagueness (by placing the phrase about deep-rooted tendencies between two others referring to activities.
One person who is not buying the outrageous liberal interpretation is Richard Neuhaus, see today's NY TIMES. He points out that gays (anyone exclusively or dominantly attracted to another male) are excluded. It is indeed obvious that the text says even those who have experiences fleeting same-sex attraction in adolescence will be excluded unless they have been "cured" of this for the last three years.
But maybe Neuhaus as a new convert does not understand the Catholic mind. The bishops and the neocath bloggers seem to be rushin to assure us that the document does not exclude the homosexually oriented, only those unable to refrain from porn or promiscuity.
referring to gay practices) which allows the document to have no teeth in practice.
"J Potter, all gays have a problem with celibacy?"
"Gays" by definition reject celibacy and chastity. Most homosexuals, however, have a problem with remaining celibate. Perhaps almost as many people with normal sexual attraction have a probelm with remaining celibate too.
"Perhaps all straights too? Perhaps celibacy is the problem?"
Well, if the Latin Church wants to ordain only celibates as priests, then obviously it's a big mistake to ordain homosexuals -- wholly apart from the fact that homosexuality and same-sex attraction is a grave psychological and emotional disorder that would disqualify a man from ordination. The standards for ordination are very high -- most normal men do not meet them, so it's hardly surprising that sexually perverted men would be, as a rule, incapable of meeting them.
Mr Potter first concedes that perhaps there is no major difference between gays and straights when it comes to the difficulty of celibacy.
Then he says that if the RCC wants only celibate priests it's a big mistake to ordain gays. This is rather illogical.
He ends up in purely homophobic fulminations, which make me pity his two boys. If one of them should turn out to be gay, I can only see tragedy on the cards.
Sorry to be personal, Potter, but you really have a big probem.
To tell your gay children that they are sexually perverted is simply monstrous.
Again I recommend the wise and humane document on this by the US Bishops.
"Mr Potter first concedes that perhaps there is no major difference between gays and straights when it comes to the difficulty of celibacy."
No, I didn't concede that. I merely noted that most homosexuals, and perhaps as many normal men, do not have the ability to remain celibate. I didn't say there's no major difference between gays and straights when it comes to the difficulty of celibacy. First of all, gays are by definition non-celibate. Second of all, the lack of ability to remain celibate that one finds in homosexual men is of a different type than the lack of ability to remain celibate that one finds in normal men. One of the symptoms of homosexuality is rampant, uncontrolled promiscuity -- that's why homosexuals find chastity much more difficult than normal men, who find chastity difficult enough even with their sexual attraction being rightly ordered to the opposite sex as God intended. But we also have to account for vocation -- a man who is not called to celibacy will find celibacy an unbearable burden. In light of the Church's horrifying experience with homosexual men in the priesthood over the past 50 years, one must doubt whether those homosexual men were called to celibacy. It doesn't seem that they had a true vocation to the celibate priesthood -- and since they as homosexuals weren't likely to marry, they also weren't candidates for the Eastern Churches' married priesthood. Consequently, one must wonder how many of them were truly called by God to become priests. The ordinations, of course, were valid -- but their priesthoods have resulted in spiritual and moral shipwreck, a disaster for them and for the whole Church.
"Then he says that if the RCC wants only celibate priests it's a big mistake to ordain gays. This is rather illogical."
What's illogical about it? Non-celibate men cannot be celibate priests. It's really not difficult to follow the logic.
"He ends up in purely homophobic fulminations, which make me pity his two boys."
Yes, I already know you don't believe homosexuality is a sexual perversion, but truth doesn't stop being true just because somebody refuses to believe it.
"If one of them should turn out to be gay, I can only see tragedy on the cards. Sorry to be personal, Potter, but you really have a big problem."
I agree, as the Church says, that it is a great tragedy whenever we find humans who are afflicted with the disorder of homosexuality. But I don't see why it's any more of a problem for one of my sons to end up suffering from homosexuality as opposed to one of your spiritual sons. In both cases, God expects us to upholds His truth and to show His charity to them. I think, however, that it is you who would have a greater problem dealing with a homosexual man under your pastoral care than I would in dealing with a homosexual son -- after all, I assent to the Church teachings on this subject, but you do not, so I'll be able to deal with a homosexual s
son as the Church intends, but you will not be able to deal with a homosexual man under your pastoral care as the Church intends.
gays are by definition non-celibate? obfuscation, obfuscation, obfuscation. It was quite clear I was referring to people with homosexual orientation, not to sexually active gay men.
A vast number of heterosexual priests considered they had no vocation to celibacy and simply left the priesthood. Many more continued to have a sexual life of some kind within it, including bishops.
Happily I do not deal with pastoral problems on the ground. What I would say to a gay man is exactly what I said above in response to fidens' question. I could never bring myself to tell a gay person, of whatever age, that his sexuality is objectively disordered, perverted, unwilled by God, and that he must refrain from all sexual expression his whole life long. It is just too unfair.
What we need here is a controlled experiment. Get a clergy that is truly heterosexual and see if celibate clerical culture revives.
A big problem is this notion of "vocation" -- especially complicated in the case of the secular clergy who are supposed to have both a vocation to ministry and a vocation to celibacy. I am not sure that either expression makes much sense. A vocation to ministry might mean only that the church calls a suitable man to assume the ministerial responsibility. No need to start poking around for mystic traces of a divine call. A vocation for celibacy suggests that a man is "not the marrying kind" and that often suggests homosexuality. Celibacy was not a Jewish idea so it does not figure in the New Testament except for a rather dismal chapter in I Corinthians, and even there it is linked to the expectation of the immediate coming of the end of the world.
The early church cult of virginity was exaggerated, in my opinion, and its grafting onto the secular clergy, first with zealous monastic bishops like Augustine, and finally in a sweeping legislation of the Latin Church, was an imposition. Today it is a failed exercise in social engineering.
Spirit of vatitwo, you wrote : "To tell your gay children that they are sexually perverted is simply monstrous"
Every father and mother takes time to explain his their children what is right or wrong and why...
I don't think they tell them : "you're a perverted monstruous avaricious" or "you're a perverted monstruous liar"...
Why would this be different for matter such as homosuexuality?
However I agree with you on one thing : A friend of mine have gay tendencies. He is chast. But he didn't very well know about it.
Today, he knows that's to his coming back to the Church. He lives in celibacy, for the Lord, and he lives joyfully (of course not every day, as every body).
I think this blog may be interesting on the subject of catholic with gay tendencies : http://davidmorrison.typepad.com/
But -and I 'll finish with that- I don't think we have to put always and always "prelates", "Vatican" the "pope" on trial. Our intellect is limited, and we are influenced by many things we are unable to see. Since they don't throw the Gospel away, we should follow them and trust them, trust in God.
You know, catholic church is dying of criticisms...
I thought a catholic way of seing things was to point out what is good in every thing instead of always condemning.
Spiritof vatitwo you do that very well about many things . Why not with your home church?
God bless you.
I would like to know what Gege and Potter think of the Vatican Instruction. Does it or does it not exclude gay men who are not sexually active from the priesthood? As far as I can see the plain literal sense of the document is that even people with late-adolescent gay tendencies never acted on are not welcome in seminaries. But to my amusement the entire neocath blogger community are celebrating the document as WELCOMING pious and orhtodox and chaste gays into the seminaries!
Not only Dreadnought -- with his erotic pics -- but many others -- and Dreadnought claims that Richard Neuhaus agrees with him, contrary to what the NYT reported.
Is the neocath blogosphere a vast gay conspiracy???
David Morrison is a masochist like the Maoists of 40 years ago who went round proving that The Little Red Book was right, right, right. He argues that the Document is Right because it only excludes those who narrowly identify themselves as gay, not those who are gay but do not make a song and dance about it!
Really, this kind of doubletalk reminds me of the sanitized language of Nazi Germany. We are not sending Jews to death camps but to work camps -- good for their health. Beware of tampering with words -- they carry weight.
Andrew Sullivan at least has the forthrightness to refer to "one of the darkest moments in modern church history". But rightists seem to have drunk so deep of the poison brewed from their own lies that they cannot see any fact or argument plain any more (one thinks of the hapless Bush) but flounder around in a fog of half-truths and imprecision.
Spirit of vatitwo,
i'll be able to answer you as soon as i read the document in my own langage .... (it would avoid misunderstanding). I'll tell you !
However I'm a little bite astounded by the way you categorise people such Dave Morrisson or others...
You've got great knowledge to be sure. But how dare you juge this way?
It seems sometimes to be Homophoby VS radtrad-phoby ?
Well, I can't accept that;
Saying to someone that he is misconducting himself is not a "phoby" ! Trying to be faithful to the Church is a good thing, but we have always to discerne the way we chose and are chosing at each moment to please the Lord.
Gege you missed my point about calling your gay children perverts -- it was in reference to J Potter's characterization of the homosexual orientation as perverted.
What makes me laugh is the obviously gay nature of so many of the neocaths! Only that can explain their bizarre, topsy-turvy reading of the Vatican document. To a man they are saying, "oh it's those awful loud guys who criticize our dear Holy Father that they document is talking about, it has nothing to do with us! Our gay feelings are so tasteful, so discreet, that no one could object to them, and then we are SO pious, SO orthodox..."
For the self-hating kiss the rod Catholic gay mentality, Dreadnought is a junior version of Morrison -- look him up! You might enjoy his "naked men" sidebar. Of course both of these guys could be praised for being open about their gayness and claiming to find Christ in it as in the Burning Bush, but I still cannot get my head around their amazing hermeneutics, based on mental prostration before any word that they think issues from the mouth of the Vatican combined. Both are celebrating the Vatican document on the grounds that it welcomes gays into the priesthood!
Note how Blosser:s piece above ends -- and I think he is writing in his own voice there. He gloats over the idea that gays will die out. It reminds me of Wagner talking about the fulfillment of the Jew lies in his annihilation, etc.
Spirit of Vatitwo,
What exactly do you call "gay nature" ?
I think it would be helpful to developp ... (better understanding, better dialog, to my point of view 
)
Indeed it seem that we are perhaps not putting the exactly same meaning behind this word....
I'm interested in your own (or if not your own the definition you received) for "gay nature" : broad or restrictiv, psychoanalytic or common sensical, etc...
Thanks.
Note how Blosser:s piece above ends -- and I think he is writing in his own voice there. He gloats over the idea that gays will die out.
Anonymous is right about the voice but wrong about the mood: there is no gloating there, but simple description of a lamentable fact. Have you read The Wanting Seed?
What makes me laugh is the obviously gay nature of so many of the neocaths!
Here we go again with O'Leary playing omniscient God, and surmising that we're (though I reject the "neocath" label) all "gay" now! Has Fr. Bojangles missed his vocation as a stand up comic in a lounge act?
In the case of the neocaths I use the phrase "gay nature" in a very wide sense indeed. Just look at David Morrison or Dreadnought to see the tip of that iceberg, and look at their correspondence from "orthodox" gay seminarians. The Vatican have unwittingly struck a blow at their own supporters in an Instruction whose crabbed, cryptic, laconic, inconsistent, ambiguous, unconvincing psychology, morality, vocabulary and logic are such as to make it perfectly apparent that the non-dialogal approach to the complexities of homosexuality has backfired on these oracular bureaucrats.
As to what I think of homosexuality as such, I think it is very deeply rooted, just as heterosexuality is, and has about the same components of nature and nurture (using nurture to mean the psychological development of the infant) as heterosexuality has. It is no more mysterious than heterosexuality.
>>What makes me laugh is the obviously gay nature of so many of the neocaths!>>
Give me a break, Father O' Leary!! That is so high school-ish to impute "gayness" to anyone who speaks against homosexuality as a perversion. It's what I would expect from adolescents who just come out of the closet and labor under the delusion that everyone is secretly just like them. Well, here's a news flash; We're not!
James
Thanks for the explanations
However, to my mind, the question about homosexuality isn't how deeply rooted it is in such or such people, but should this particular man or woman allow this trend to developp or not, is it?
"gays are by definition non-celibate? obfuscation, obfuscation, obfuscation. It was quite clear I was referring to people with homosexual orientation, not to sexually active gay men."
Yes, I know you use "gay" to refer to any homosexual, whether sexually active or not. But that's not how I and others use the term -- we distinguish between those who are actively and openly homosexual and those who merely suffer from homosexuality. That's not obfuscation -- it's clarity.
"I could never bring myself to tell a gay person, of whatever age, that his sexuality is objectively disordered, perverted, unwilled by God, and that he must refrain from all sexual expression his whole life long."
And yet you swore an oath to do just that. Doesn't it bother you that you find yourself unable to follow through on what you promised?
"I would like to know what Gege and Potter think of the Vatican Instruction. Does it or does it not exclude gay men who are not sexually active from the priesthood?"
Again, gay men are sexually active -- but as for homosexual men who are not sexually active, the instruction allows a little leeway for some men who may have had homosexual experiences in their youth. However, they must have overcome any homosexual tendencies for no less than three years prior to admission to seminary.
"As far as I can see the plain literal sense of the document is that even people with late-adolescent gay tendencies never acted on are not welcome in seminaries."
No, it obviously doesn't say anything of the sort. I don't see how anyone could reach such a conclusion about the document's plain literal sense.
Richard Neuhaus says the document excludes people with exclusive or dominant homosexual desires. Dreadnought, reading the same text as I did, claims that Neuhaus agrees with him that it only excludes gays who identify as such in some ideological assertion. David Morrison agrees with Dreadnought's interpretation:
"It appears to me that the document is saying that If a man lives with a degree of same sex attraction that is so key to his identity that he self-identifies as gay, well, in this current cultural enviroment he may not make the best candidate for priesthood.
"By way of contrast, the man who lives with a degree of same sex attraction, and even aknowledges that he does so, but does not self-identify as gay or otherwise make it a central pillar of his person might make a very good seminarian and priest."
Perhaps Dreadnought and Morrison are not actually gay (despite the abundance of semi-nude pics on the former's site) but only a little gay. But even then the document seems to exclude even fleeting gay attractions such as it links with late adolescence unless the candidate has not experienced them for several years. The press has taken this to mean "unless the candidate has been sexually inactive for several years" but that is not what the Vatican says, and would indeed be an amazingly liberal statement.
I never swore and never would swear any such oath, Mr Potter. What oath are you referring to?
"As far as I can see the plain literal sense of the document is that even people with late-adolescent gay tendencies never acted on are not welcome in seminaries."
Mr Potter comments: "No, it obviously doesn't say anything of the sort."
OK, I should have said "not welcome in the priesthood". It says the candidate must have overcome such tendencies a few years before ordination, so yes, when he enters the seminary he may have them, but he must outgrow them.
"as for homosexual men who are not sexually active, the instruction allows a little leeway for some men who may have had homosexual experiences in their youth. However, they must have overcome any homosexual tendencies for no less than three years prior to admission to seminary." ??? It says nothing about homosexual experiences in their youth, if by that you mean experiences of having sex.
Seriously, do the bureaucrats who penned this obscure document know what they are talking about?
However, to my mind, the question about homosexuality isn't how deeply rooted it is in such or such people, but should this particular man or woman allow this trend to develop or not, is it?
Gégé | 11.25.05 - 10:48 am |
I do not understand what it could mean to allow one's sexuality to "develop". One can repress it by not indulging in sexual fantasy, avoiding occasions of sexual arousement, and refraining from sexual acts. And the Vatican is NOT talking about that but about one's "homosexuality" or "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" as such. If it merely urged gay seminarians to practice celibate sexual discipline no one would object to the document.
Mr Potter, if someone's son came to his parents and said, "I think I'm gay" would you say, "Who did you do it boy?" The son might reply, "I mean I am attracted to other boys, not that I have done anything". What would you then say? That he is a pervert? -- which is what you seemed to be saying in your very angry-making message above, which I characterized as monstrous.
In the very wide sense in which I used "gay" about the neocaths, Mr Caputo, you would count! You are rushing to the assistance of gays who want the document not to exclude them from seminaries.
What Potter said was:
homosexuality and same-sex attraction is a grave psychological and emotional disorder that would disqualify a man from ordination. The standards for ordination are very high -- most normal men do not meet them, so it's hardly surprising that sexually perverted men would be, as a rule, incapable of meeting them.
THIS IMPLIES that same-sex attraction makes a person a SEXUALLY PERVERTED MAN -- therefore you would tell your gay son that he is SEXUALLY PERVERTED on the sole basis of his godgiven sexual orientation. And that is MONSTROUS.
So pb now claims that "it is barren, unproductive and cannot sustain itself or a civilization" is a "lamentable fact"?
The same thing used to be said about Judaism, by people like Richard Wagner, and the people who said it also said that they were not expressing vile prejudice but just recognizing a "lamentable fact".
Ironically, if you had to identify two groups who have contributed far in excess of their numbers to Western culture, the two groups who would instantly spring to mind are Jews and gays.
The Wanting Seed, as described by customers on amazon.com, is a homophobic novel -- no surprise, seeing who is recommending it.
"And as funny as it is to read, "It's sapiens to be homo," the state's advocation of homosexuality betrays a deep misunderstanding on Burgess's part. Admittedly, the novel is 40 years old, and things have come a long way since then, but it's still bothersome."
Is a 1962 dystopian novel a serious source for wisdom on homosexuality?
Perhaps the same author's "Nothing Like the Sun" might be a more likely place to look -- its blurb says it traces Shakespeare's talent to his sexual drives.
"THIS IMPLIES that same-sex attraction makes a person a SEXUALLY PERVERTED MAN"
It doesn't imply it -- it states it explicitly. Same-sex attraction is a sexual perversion.
"therefore you would tell your gay son that he is SEXUALLY PERVERTED on the sole basis of his godgiven sexual orientation. And that is MONSTROUS."
I say it is monstrous to credit God (though I note the lower-case "g," so one may hope you meant some spirit entity, not God) as the origin and giver of sexual affections that are disordered and contrary to nature.
"I never swore and never would swear any such oath, Mr Potter. What oath are you referring to?"
Yes, you did. When you were ordained, you vowed and swore this:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURI...RIA/
cdfoath.htm
"With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.
"I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.
"Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act."
No doubt the exact wording has changed somewhat since your ordination, but I'm sure it hasn't changed fundamentally.
If, on the other hand, you did not make a formal profession of faith on the occasion of your ordination, I would wonder greatly how it came to be omitted in your case.
"It says nothing about homosexual experiences in their youth, if by that you mean experiences of having sex."
It doesn't explicitly refer to them, but it also doesn't explicitly say that only those may be ordained who have never been party to a homosexual act.
"The son might reply, 'I mean I am attracted to other boys, not that I have done anything.' What would you then say? That he is a pervert?"
I would then say that I am genuinely, deeply saddened to learn of his affliction, and would ask him if he would be willing to seek spiritual and psychological treatment. I would tell him that if he chooses not to seek help, that I could not in any way condone his indulging his disordered appetites, but that I would always love him and pray for his healing.
Amazing to be told I have taken oaths which I know very well I have not. Heavens, next you will be telling me I have contracted marriage or adopted a baby!
Bah, of course I never said that only those with no sexual experience could be ordained. Read me again -- EVEN those with no sexual experience may NOT be ordained if they retain fleeting late-adolescent homosexual feelings.
The Catholic homophobic parent uses psychiatrists to bully and terrify his child, but of course the psychiatrists tells the child that it is the parent who has a problem. (I met a case of this in Japan; the child in question was in his twenties when his Catholic mother bullied him into going to a shrink.) Then the homophobic parent looks for another psychiatist, ending up in the ex-gay cults.
The oaths in question are not administered to ordinary priests but only to those seeking special positions in the Church. Many have problems of conscience with these oaths and turn down the positions in consequence (just as many turn down being bishops because of disagreement on topics like contraception). Result, an episcopacy of very low caliber.
even people with tendencies never acted on are not welcome in seminaries unless they have completely outgrown these tendencies
BALDERDASH, says JP.
Why???
That's exactly what the document says.
Wonderfully sane intervention by Timothy Radcliffe -- he says put the best interpretation on the document, and move on!
Well, I see the Dreadnought interpretation is being taken up by high figures in the Church! And as presented by Timothy Radcliffe it sounds wonderfully sane.
http://thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/r...gi/tablet-
01110
What a waste of time and money, to spend eight years producing a document that is then explained away by the gay-friendly bishops and superiors. We are not likely to see the Vatican rejecting these interpretations. Such a public show of division in the ranks would compound the scandal.
"I do not understand what it could mean to allow one's sexuality to "develop". One can repress it by not indulging in sexual fantasy, avoiding occasions of sexual arousement, and refraining from sexual acts."
Yes, roughly, I mean chastity is the rule for people with gay tendances... But the Gospel is a way of freedom, that's why I would not use the same wording than you (repress, etc... )
"And the Vatican is NOT talking about that but about one's "homosexuality" or "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" as such. If it merely urged gay seminarians to practice celibate sexual discipline no one would object to the document."
As I previous told, this document isn't available in my own language -exept in "well-informed" secular medias (who litterally hate what is catholic), but I distrusted many of them : bashing the Church is exiting for them...
I have understood that this document will be available in in few days.
Then I'll read it ...
Then I'll speak about it.
God bless you.
Trying to fend off a Galileo moment?
Sorry, Tim Radcliffe, but your interpretation of the document in the Tablet yesterday Friday is pure wishful thinking. Gays will just have to get it -- the church does not want them in seminaries.
Read the document, Fr Tim:
The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual TENDENCIES. Regarding acts... Tradition has always considered them as intrinsically immoral. As regards to deep-seated homosexual TENDENCIES, which are present in a CERTAIN NUMBER OF MEN and women, these also ARE OBJECTIVELY DISORDERED and are often a trial for SUCH PEOPLE. THEY must be accepted with respect and sensitivity; every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
.. the Church, even while deeply respecting THE PERSONS IN QUESTION, cannot admit to Seminary or Holy Orders THOSE WHO are actively homosexual, HAVE deep-seated homosexual TENDENCIES, or support the so-called gay culture.
SUCH PEOPLE, in fact, find themselves in a situation that seriously obstructs them from properly relating to men and women. The negative consequences that can result from the Ordination of PERSONS WITH deep-seated homosexual TENDENCIES should not be obscured.
IT IS OBVIOUS, FR TIM, THAT THE "PERSONS" I PUT IN BLOCK CAPITALS ARE THE SAME PERSONS THROUGHOUT THESE PARARAPHS AND IT IS EQUALLY OBVIOUS THAT THE "TENDENCIES" I CAPITALIZE ARE THE SAME TENDENCIES THOUGHOUT THESE PARAGRAPHS.
So the text says: we sympathize with people who suffer from gay tendencies but we cannot accept such people in seminaries. Everything else in the text confirms that reading and confutes yours. Do not dabble in lies, Fr Tim, even for a good cause. They always rebound.
"The oaths in question are not administered to ordinary priests but only to those seeking special positions in the Church. Many have problems of conscience with these oaths and turn down the positions in consequence"
That's not what I've been told, but perhaps I was misinformed. In any case, you admit that bishops must take these oaths, and priests must swear to obey their bishops or superiors and their successors, so one way or another all priests are bound by the Professio Fidei, since they must obey men who must adhere to the Professio Fidei.
What's especially interesting here is that you cannot in good conscience make a Professio Fidei, whereas I, only a layman with no vocation to the priesthood, could make a Professio Fidei wholeheartedly and without hesitation.
"Result, an episcopacy of very low caliber."
I don't think requiring Catholic bishops to be Catholic is what gives us bad and mediocre bishops. The idea that only unfaithful, disloyal, heretical, and dishonest men make good bishops is just topsy-turvy.
Fr. O'Leary, do you exempt yourself from these canons?
Canon 750 – § 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.
"Then the [gibberish] parent looks for another psychiatist, ending up in the ex-gay cults."
The Catholic Church is an ex-gay cult.
Canon 833 says those to be ordained to the diaconate must make a profession of faith:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/EN...G1104/
__P2R.HTM
Fr. O'Leary claims he has never promised to adhere to and to teach the Catholic faith. Could it be that the Catholic Church only began ordaining Catholic men to the priesthood after Fr. O'Leary was ordained a deacon?
You have no head for Canon Law, Potter, so give it up.
I cite Noonan because he is the primary source of my claim which you guys dismiss, and because he is also the primary authority on the subject. I have read several articles trying to undercut him and I note that they are written by rightwing catholics with a clear agenda, inferior scholarly credentials, and convoluted, unconvincing arguments.
And I repeat, that the church once condement taking interest on loans, as such, and now accepts that practice.
Equally it may accept forms of sexual expression that it condemned in the past.
It will continue to condemn usury and unchastity, of course.
Radcliffe's piece is nothing short of dishonest. Based on his writing I would strongly state that his mindset is one of the decisive problems afflicting the Church today.
His presumptuousness alone is breathtaking: I know these men are called, therefore they cannot *not* be called.
Incredible.
Spirit of Vatican II says "Beware of tampering with words -- they carry weight" and proceeds to call Morrison a Misogynist!
The irony would be amusing if it were not isnutling. Morrison is an honorable guy--or his site is--and attempts to faithfully remain in step with the Church, something woefully lacking in too many posts here.
"You have no head for Canon Law, Potter, so give it up."
I repeat: Canon 833 says those to be ordained to the diaconate must make a profession of faith.
I do not know how long that canon (or the relevant provision of that canon) has been in force, but I had been led to believe that the Church has for some time been requiring those who were to be ordained to the priesthood to make professions of faith. Fr. O'Leary insists that he has never made a profession of faith, has never promised to uphold the teachings of the Church. Now, I don't believe him for a second -- the Church has always expected her priests to hold and teach the Catholic faith. Confronted with some inconvenient canons, he responds with a condescending insult. I rather suspect his conscience is getting to him.
Conscience?! Ha!Ha!
Have you been praying your Breviary, Father?... Before the "Conciliar Renewal" abolished the hour of Prime, priests frequently had to meditate on the Athanasian Creed... Good Advent exercise for you, Father: "Quicumque vult salvus esse, ANTE OMNIA opus est, ut teneat CATHOLICAM FIDEM...et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam aeternam: qui vero mala, in ignem aeternum. HAEC EST FIDES CATHOLICA, quam nisi quisque FIDELITER FIRMITERQUE crediderit, salvus esse NON POTERIT. Amen"
Joe, I never called anyone a Misogynist.
Of course I have made professions of faith -- and no doubt such a profession was part of the diaconate ceremony -- but that is not the same thing as the OATH you claimed I had taken and of which you sent me the text.
If you google you can probably find weighty theological criticisms of the Oath now supposed to be taken by teachers of theology. No doubt you will treat all these critics with the shallow scorn you and New Catholic pour on any priest that does not meet your exigent convert dreams.
I see that deacons are now obliged to take a pretty mild Oath of fidelity, http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/...ach/
cdfoath.htm.
In 1972 this was not the case -- at least I have no memory of any talk of oaths at that time. The 1983 new code of canon law was not then extant. The current clerical obsession with oaths is symptomatic of the crisis of the RCC, as indeed is the zeal of the laity for more and more oaths.
"Of course I have made professions of faith -- and no doubt such a profession was part of the diaconate ceremony -- but that is not the same thing as the OATH you claimed I had taken and of which you sent me the text."
An ordination ceremony is sacramental, which means it involves vows, oaths, and promises to God and His people. Now, when I quoted from the current version of the Professio Fidei (which includes language that matches Canon 750 paragraphs 1-2), I included the qualifier, "No doubt the exact wording has changed somewhat since your ordination, but I'm sure it hasn't changed fundamentally." Since you admit now that you probably made some kind of profession of faith during your ordination to the diaconate, the only question that remains is what was the wording of your profession of faith. That question, however, is secondary to the point I have been insisting on -- that your decision to go forward with ordination to the Catholic priesthood carries with it certain indispensable obligations to God and His Church, including the obligation to teach the Catholic faith. But you said you could not bring yourself to teach a homosexual in accordance with the Church's faith.
yes, I could not teach a gay person that his sexuality is intrinsically disordered, because I believe it to be untrue.
just as I could not teach a Jew he is a deicide or perfidious.
why does that worry you so much?
actually even pastors who subscribe to church teaching never, ever tell gays that their sexuality is objectively disordered. There is such a thing as pastoral tact and epiekeia. Moreover, Catholic pastoral practice allows one to accept provisionally a stable gay couple -- a very conservative Dominican urged a gay acquaintance to mine to be faithful to the man who loved him and not to play around.
why do you make a crime of humanity?
and I do not think sacraments usually involve oaths or even vows.
baptism involves baptismal PROMISES, not the same thing as oaths or vows
marriage involves a vow, not an oath. When did marriage become a sacrament by the way? today a historian told me it was in 1439 and that priests were not necessary witnesses for a binding, valid marriage until 1563.
The Eucharist, Penance, Extreme Unction, Confirmation require neither vows nor oaths.
Ordination requires a solemn promise of celibacy (prior to subdiaconate, I think -- but subdiaconate is now extinct) -- not a vow, and not an oath either as far as I know, but I am not sure of this. It also requires a solemn promise of obedience to one's ordinary and his successors -- not a vow or an oath either as far as I know. Current canon law apparently requires an oath as well, but in my day, if there was any profesion of faith it was probably something liek the baptismal promises, neither a vow nor an oath.
Of course I would teach a homosexual in accordance with the church's faith that all that God has created is good, that love covers a multitude of sins, etc. I am after all a Catholic preacher and theologian, of pretty substantial orthodoxy, even if I share the skepticism of the majority of priests and a vast number of the laity about such topics as contraception etc. If you hunt people like me out of your church you will soon find yourself trapped in a pitiable sect!
And JP, you still have not said what you think of the Radcliffe "interpretation" of the document?
"Yes, I could not teach a gay person that his sexuality is intrinsically disordered, because I believe it to be untrue.
just as I could not teach a Jew he is a deicide or perfidious.
why does that worry you so much?
actually even pastors who subscribe to church teaching never, ever tell gays that their sexuality is objectively disordered. "
But the Bible never said jews were deicide; whereas the Bible said that homosexuality is a sin, didn't it?
"if I share the skepticism of the majority of priests and a vast number of the laity about such topics as contraception etc. "
The priests I know of this kind are the past generation of priests...
Todays are more aware of the wisdom of the Church...
We have an incredible luck : thanks to our christianity, we are of this society and we also have enough "other blood" to see what are dead-ends .
If we begin to agree every thing the society gives us as the "Good" just because any kind of love stay behind, and not following the Church, how can we be witness of Christs true love ? because every "love" isn't from God's love.
Without the Church, it's rather risky, isn't it?
"a very conservative Dominican"...
Ha!Ha!
Who??? St. Pius V? Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange?... It seems your concept of "conservative" is quite curious, huh?
"And JP, you still have not said what you think of the Radcliffe 'interpretation' of the document?"
His interpretation is erroneous -- but, sadly, unsurprising given the current state of things in the Church.
I tend to agree with "Diogenes" at Off the Record:
http://www.cwnews.com/
offthereco...fftherecord.cfm
The Instruction Arrives!
Seldom have I been more happy to be wrong.
The Doomsday Doc -- in what appears to be its final form -- has been leaked, and contrary to my own dire prognostications, the Holy See has given us a doc that can hunt.
The Instruction bases itself on the priest's "configuration to Christ" and the "spiritual paternity" that it includes. Thus the Church speaks to us about those truths of which she is a teacher -- in fact the preeminent teacher -- as opposed to speaking in terms of clinical psychology, where she is a pupil. The good that she is guarding is a spiritual good, and she views homosexuality as contrary to the affective maturity that is a component of this good.
The Instruction makes it clear that no one can carry homosexual baggage across the seminary threshold. If your homosexual propensities were transitory and you've put them behind you, you can be given the chance to proceed. If your homosexual propensities are deeply rooted, you should be treated gently and with respect (con rispetto e delicatezza), but you don't get in the door.
The Instruction's footnote number 10, in reference to the point above, cites the May 16 2002 CDW letter, which said, "A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders." Its citation here indicates plainly that the CDW letter still has directive force and the Church teaching on which it is grounded has not been changed or "surpassed" in any substantive way.
The Instruction tacitly dismisses the tendentious claims that homosexuality is innate, or unchangeable, or changeable only in rare circumstances. While it acknowledges the disorder can be deep-seated in some persons, it maintains that it may also be just an adolescent hang-up one can leave behind. Here the Church's moral wisdom rescues her from the errors of politicized academic fashion. To treat adult homosexuality (except in rare cases) as a self-indulgent prolongation of juvenile weakness and infatuation may rattle some gay ideologues, but it's more realistic and more charitable than the standard APA account. In summary form, the Church is saying, "For the love of Christ, knock-off the pansy act and grow up."
This is as it should be. As the self-designation "gay" indicates, adult homosexuality is essentially frivolous, and no one can really take it seriously. Or better, the only circumstance in which we can take it seriously is in the case of persons who are trying to rid themselves of it.
There's a close analogy here with certain strands of iconoclastic feminism. When nuns tell you you should give up monotheis
When nuns tell you you should give up monotheism and start sacrificing marigolds to Ishtar, you recognize they've been damaged somehow and feel sorry for them, but you don't deal in earnest with their theology. It can't take the weight.
The underlying rage, however, is very real. This is as true in the case of gays as of feminists. And this brings me to the controversial part of the Instruction. It says that men with transitory homosexual tendencies may be admitted provided such tendencies are "overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate." Note that the three-year plan applies to tendencies, not "activity" -- as earlier reports suggested and as some of today's headlines erroneously repeat. If the proviso is read (as it should be) so as to exclude those who tendencies have been actualized in mortally sinful ways, there's no problem. Taken otherwise, it seriously underestimates the anger and anarchic destructiveness that attend the gay lifestyle. As Robert Gotcher of HMS pointed out earlier, "if the requirement is three years of celibacy before diaconal ordination, that means practically speaking no more than six months before entering the seminary." Thankfully, the text asks for a lot more than celibacy.
Are we closer to solving the problem? Not in the foreseeable future. The men asked to use this Instruction to guide their seminary admissions are the men who find the Vagina Monologues in keeping with Ex Corde Ecclesiae. But the Instruction seems to recognize this, insisting that "the candidate himself is the man most responsible for his own formation." Sure, a crypto-gay can lie his way through to ordination if he's devious enough. But if so, his choice for duplicity -- that is, for adolescent dishonesty -- performatively concedes the truth of the teaching he's trying to circumvent. But the good news is that there are honest men out there with the guts to tell the truth about themselves and (in Cardinal George's words) to let the Church be the place where Christ changes them. They've got a document they can work with, and we've got a document we can defend.
"Yes, I could not teach a gay person that his sexuality is intrinsically disordered, because I believe it to be untrue."
But you, like the rest of us, have a divinely-imposed obligation to strive to attain that belief. Dignitatis Humanae speaks very eloquently to that.
"just as I could not teach a Jew he is a deicide or perfidious."
The difference, as you well know, is that the Church rejects the false and pernicious notions that Jews are by virtue of being Jewish uniquely guilty of Christ's death, and essentially treacherous and unfaithful to God by virtue of being Jewish. But she affirms that homosexuality is a disorder, a distortion of the natural order of things that God instituted in the beginning.
"why does that worry you so much?"
I wouldn't say it "worries" me. But it does sadden me when I find an alter Christus whose beliefs are not in conformity with the teachings of Christ's Bride.
"actually even pastors who subscribe to church teaching never, ever tell gays that their sexuality is objectively disordered. There is such a thing as pastoral tact and epiekeia."
I think Archbishop O'Malley of Boston is an example of a pastor who subscribes to this church teaching and yet still can tactfully tell gays that their sexuality is objectively disordered.
http://www.rcab.org/News/
release...ment051123.html
"Moreover, Catholic pastoral practice allows one to accept provisionally a stable gay couple -- a very conservative Dominican urged a gay acquaintance of mine to be faithful to the man who loved him and not to play around."
That "pastoral practice" is a lot of things, but calling it "Catholic" is dishonest. Would that your very conservative Dominican were less conservative and more orthodox.
"and I do not think sacraments usually involve oaths or even vows."
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought that's what "sacramentum" originally referred to -- an oath or vow or covenant.
"Baptism involves baptismal PROMISES, not the same thing as oaths or vows. Marriage involves a vow, not an oath."
It's true that an oath and a vow and a promise are three distinct, although related, things. The point is that ordination to the priesthood carries with it some very heavy obligations that bind the conscience, and that a man must assent to if he really desires ordination. A Catholic priest who rejects some or all of the Catholic faith is a monstrous absurdity.
"When did marriage become a sacrament by the way?"
Around A.D. 30, when Jesus raised it to the dignity and glory of a sacrament.
"Today a historian told me it was in 1439 and that priests were not necessary witnesses for a binding, valid marriage until 1563."
But priests aren't necessary witnesses even now -- deacons also can witness the sacrament. However, I'd heard that in the Eastern Churches, a priest is believed to be not merely a witness but the instrument of the sacrament. I don't know if that's t
I don't know if that's true or not, though.
"Of course I would teach a homosexual in accordance with the church's faith that all that God has created is good, that love covers a multitude of sins, etc."
That's good as far as it goes -- the Church's doctrine goes much farther than that, though. Also, contrary to your opinion, the Church's faith is that homosexuality is not created by God.
"If you hunt people like me out of your church you will soon find yourself trapped in a pitiable sect!"
I'm not hunting you out of the Church -- I'm speaking to you as your (younger) brother, reminding you of your duties and exhorting you to repent.
Gege ^^ "the bible never said jews were deicides wherease it said homosexuality is a sin"
Hmm, for a long time it was thought that "you are of your father the Devil" (Jn 
and "his blood be upon us and upon our We have got to get beyond the fundamentlism whose bloody effects are so clear not only in our dreadful history of persecution but also in the violence most characteristic of our times, in all three monotheisms, not only in Islam. See Karen Armstrong.
Garbled here -- the point is that the Church called Jews PERFIDIOUS in the most solemn liturgy of the year, every year, for hundreds of years, and used Matt 27 and John 8 as sources -- Potter wants to propagate exactly the same kind of hateful language against gays and cannot stand it that many priests and theologians, who have studied the matter in depth, recognize that this anti-gay ranting (Diogenes on pansies etc.) is of the same stuff as antisemitic ranting. Both kinds of ranting filled the death chambers of Auschwitz and the church bears a heavy responsibity for both.
The O'Malley document does not appear to contain the statement that homosexual orientation is as such disordered.
The pastoral practice I referred to IS Catholic -- it is that of Paul VI and of Jan Visser, co-author of Persona Humana. I am sure the good Dominican was aware of this and was far more versed in the Church's moral and pastoral traditions that those who sneer at him.
"They are not well in their wits to whom anything that Thou hast created is displeasing..."
Augustine's splendid statement boomeranged on himself when he claimed that the instinctive male erection was the first sign of original sin and the reason for the figleaves (as he says in many places).
It must also rebound on those who treat samesex attraction as a product of original sin unwilled by God (Augustine himself seems to be a fan of chaste SSA: his atque huiusmodi signis a corde amantium et redamantium procedentibus per os, per linguam, per oculos et mille motus gratissimos quasi fomitibus conflare animos et ex pluribus unum facere. Hoc est quod diligitur in amicis et sic diligitur, ut rea sibi sit humana conscientia, si non amaverit redamantem aut si amantem non redamaverit, nihil quaerens ex eius corpore praeter indicia benevolentiae. (Confessions IV 13-14).
Frankly I think too that "... for a long time it was thought that "you are of your father the Devil" " has been taught by any in the Church...And I am not sur this was THE church teaching.
However it wasn't the biblical teaching...It was a biased interpretation of the biblical teaching...
How could this be the bibical teaching when all the major heroes of christian's history were definitly jews, particularly their Savior.
Leon Bloy told something like : "Christian's antisemistism is a slap that Jesus receives in His mother 's face by his beloved isciples" (hope my translation isn't too bad, because I find it is a Raïssa Maritain's book "les grandes amitiés").
On another level are the biblical condemnations about homosexuality : clearer with no misunderstanding possible.
I've heard that the instruction will be published in my langage today or tomorrow..
I'm rather optimistic
A note about "perfidus".
My memory isn't very good but a instructed priest once
told me that "perfidus" was a correct word in latin but wasn't accurate in our present-day translations...
Correct me if I am wrong (not a great latinist : only 5 years many, many years ago, and no practice since...) but perfidus was just meaning per-fidus : who don't have the faith"...
Whereas in many modern langages as in french for exemple, "perfide" means treatchery...
It seems the translators in our present days langages failed...
Can someone confirm (or infirm) this ?
Thanks
"Both kinds of ranting filled the death chambers of Auschwitz and the church bears a heavy responsibity for both"
As we know, the Church is responsible for the Holocaust, nuclear weapons, and world hunger -- it also seems that, among other horrors, the Holy See actively worked against the invention of ice cream.
It is widely held today that the Church's "teaching of contempt" (Jules Isaac) helped pave the way to what reached its final paroxysm in the holocaust. One of the foremost representatives of the Church's repentant attitude on this is Benedict XVI. He is as loved by Jews as he is hated by gays.
Gege, for the bible on homosexuality read the essays by Robin Scroggs, and Walter Wink at http://www.bridges-across.org/ba...org/ba/
wink.htm
The Bible has no teaching on homosexuality, just a few conventional references not based on any discussion. There is far more about genocide, taking virgins as war booty, slavery etc. (the Bible is in favor of all these things).
"And JP, you still have not said what you think of the Radcliffe 'interpretation' of the document?"
His interpretation is erroneous -- but, sadly, unsurprising given the current state of things in the Church.
WELL, GUESS WHAT? JP, the US BISHOPS ARE ADOPTING THE RADCLIFFE INTERPRETATION!
http://releases.usnewswire.com/G...se.asp?
id=57226
Bishops everywhere deeply dislike the Roman Curia, and they are more than happy to blandly "interpret" its utterances and to defang them. The Curia is ignorant of the situation on the ground, and the bishops know very well that they just cannot expel all their gay seminarians -- 50 per cent, according to Cozzens and many other expert observers! If the church wants to redress the sexual orientation balance among its clergy, the way to do it is staring them in the face!
"WELL, GUESS WHAT? JP, the US BISHOPS ARE ADOPTING THE RADCLIFFE INTERPRETATION!"
That's not surprising -- this is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and Bishop Skylstad we're talking about, after all. The U.S. bishops in general have long been footdraggers and obstructionists. The Holy Spirit always gets His ways eventually, though. Rome, the beacon and standard of orthodox faith, remains true even while the lamps of other churches are dimmed one by one.
"The Curia is ignorant of the situation on the ground"
Wishful thinking on your part, I'd say.
"The pastoral practice I referred to IS Catholic -- it is that of Paul VI and of Jan Visser, co-author of Persona Humana."
Not everything that Catholics do is "Catholic."
"the point is that the Church called Jews PERFIDIOUS in the most solemn liturgy of the year, every year, for hundreds of years"
Yes, and by the rule of lex orandi, lex credendi, that means that Church does believe that there is a proper sense or context in which it can be said that Jews (not "the Jews" or "all Jews" or "Jews qua Jews") are or were perfidious. The Old Testament has quite a lot of pretty nasty "anti-semitic" sounding things to say about the Jews, but it's not anti-semitism the Bible is teaching. Rather, it's that the Jews through their disobedience to God were unfaithful to Him, i.e. treacherous, perfidious. However, the Church recognises that, given the long and shameful history of persecution and hatred of Jews on the part of Catholics, it does far more harm than good to retain the use of the word "perfidious" in the liturgy, even if the word can be used accurately of Jews in certain contexts.
However, as I've said before, we cannot compare Jewishness to the homosexual disorder. God created the Jewish people. He did not create homosexuality. The false and pernicious opinions that Catholics have held regarding the Jews must be renounced forevermore. The Church's teachings on homosexuality must be embraced.
"The O'Malley document does not appear to contain the statement that homosexual orientation is as such disordered."
No, he doesn't say it in those words -- like I said, he tactfully and sensitively presented the Church's faith.
To you
my heart cries out "perfidia"
for I found you,
the love of my life,
in somebody else's arms
your eyes
are echoing perfidia
forgetful of our promise of love,
you're sharing another's charms
with a sad lament,
my dreams have faded
like a broken melody;
while the gods of love look down and laugh
at what romantic fools
we mortals be
and yet I know my love was not for you
and so I'll take it back with a sigh,
Perfidious one,
good-bye.
"God created the Jewish people. He did not create homosexuality."
I do not see it that way at all.
To me, as to many it obviously seems that homosexuality is part of God's plan for humans and animals - he even created homosexual jews by the way.
For me the struggle to allow our homosexual brothers and sisters to live a dignified life, to perhaps find loving and trusting partners and contribute to religion and society to the fullest of their capacity is just the latest chapter in our anchient struggle to overcome prejudices.
IMHO in part the same folks that had a hard time envisioning true equality of gender and race are now all up in arms to prevent homosexuals from attaining what they deserve - true equality and the right to live life according to there desires.
For me our western society is at it's best when we continue to find ways to usher in yet another new generation with more not less equality among all of god's creations.
Or to put it another way, grega, "WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT, THAT ALL MEN WERE CREATED EQUAL AND ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS -- TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"
"To me, as to many it obviously seems that homosexuality is part of God's plan for humans and animals - he even created homosexual jews by the way."
In one sense, homosexuality, like all things that are contrary to His will, can be said to be a part of His "plan," even as the sin of Adam, the "felix culpa," formed a part of His plan even though God did not create evil. But it's flat out wrong to say that God created homosexuality, or that He wants anyone to be sexually attracted to persons of the same sex, just as He did not create obsessive compulsive disorder and does not want anyone to wash his hands over and over and over and over again for hours on end.
"WE HOLD THESE TRUTHS TO BE SELF-EVIDENT, THAT ALL MEN WERE CREATED EQUAL AND ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS -- TO LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"
Ah yes, the infallible Declaration of Independence. . . .
Whatever good things are in that document, it's to the teachings of the Church that we Catholics should look for guidance, not the political propaganda of English colonials from two centuries past.
Spirit of vatitwo,
I have read the piece of text you referred to me.
There would be many things to say.
But to be short, the man who wrote the piece does not seems to consider the Bible as interesting... If all is limitated by the knowledge of the century or of Paul, if the O.T is just the reflect of a chief of tribe or just anyone else, I would stop to read the Bible as the Word of God...
Context is needed of course. But by over-contextualizing, everything becomes irrelevant.
Jesus was a true man...So perhaps in the limitated knowledge of the context of a jewish man of his century living under roman brutality he wasn't enough aware of... he didn't know exactly when pregnancy begin, etc...Perhaps he didn't knew enough about human psychlogy : he didn't knew psychonanalysis, the last study of K. or M. on human psyche....
The faith becomes nothing !
The fact remains that -speaking as wink- in three cases surely and in other several cases equivocally, the Bible condemn acts of homosexuality... Both in OT and NT.
In Genesis God created men and women each for another. Jesus confirms the teaching of the beginnings !
What is homosexuality ? And why? Perhaps one cross to bear for those who have these trends (Remember till the DSMII-r, homosexuality was in psychiatry manuals). As in our imperfect word many of us have many cross to bear...
So a way of sanctification too !
That the way I see.
God bless you.
Wink can hardly consider the Bible uninteresting if he has spent his life studying it! But he does consider the patriarchal vision of sexuality that the Bible projects as very incomplete.
But the light of the NT tends to underline the oldest "views" : Genesis' one rather than mosaic ones...
And in the Genesis one ... when the order of the creation is given, the Bible only speaks of heterosexuality .
Genesis gives a beautiful account of marriage and of heterosexuality. But recall that the most glorious Christian commentary on the opening of Genesis is Michelangelo's creation of Adam, and it is a profoundly homoerotic painting.
Ah yes, the divinely-inspired Book of Michelangelo. How did Trent fail to list that one in the biblical canon?
And by the way, it would never occur to me in a million years that there is anything "homoerotic" about Michelangelo's painting of Adam.
But we've been over this before . . .
Hey Jordan,
>>And by the way, it would never occur to me in a million years that there is anything "homoerotic" about Michelangelo's painting of Adam.>>
Yikes! Me niether. In fact, I have it as desktop backdrop. Maybe I'm subconsciously "gay" and just can't come to grips with my "homophobia".
James P. Caputo
I had a gay priest friend who also had Michelangelo's Adam as a backdrop in his study... The Popes were quite ill at ease with the Sistine nudes and got pants painted on them. Yeats talks of how "Michelangelo's Adam" can "stir the bowels of globe-trotting Madam". Of course the projection of such erotically overpowering male beauty could only be achieved by a homosexual artist. Caravaggio is another gay artist whose very erotic angels adorn the churches of Rome.
So you find Michelangelo's Adam erotically overpowering. That's WAY more information than I ever needed to know about you, Father.
I don't actually find the Adam so overpowering -- but globe-trotting Madam does!
Commenting by HaloScan
