I'm very interested in this article published by Fr. Anatrella in the Osservatore Romano, as a comment of the pro-healthy-priesthood Instruction. Is it available online anywhere (it's OK if its in Italian)?
It's OK if it's in Italian, is what I meant. The Instruction itself, of course, is widely available... and it will probably be ignored...
"On Priesthood and Those With Homosexual Tendencies
Instruction From Congregation for Catholic Education
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 29, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Here is the text of the new Vatican instruction "Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders."
The instruction was published today by the Congregation for Catholic Education, which oversees seminary formation."
http://www.zenit.org/english/vis...phtml?
sid=80825
==
Has anyone found Anatrella's article? When you find it, please email me at newcatholic at gmail dot com .
I have read a lot of stuff by Anatrella -- it is remarkably homophobic. He calls himself a psychoanalyst, but a psychoanalyst friend of mine in Paris says that psychoanalysts think he is a catastrophe for their profession. He has been adopted as a spokesman on adolescence and sexuality by the French Bishops and now by the Vatican -- another example of how out of touch our church bureaucracy is.
Church's views on gays a sign of deep-rooted misjudgment
The most likely outcome to the Vatican's instruction on homosexuals and the priesthood will be to damage further the authority of the papacy, writes Religious Affairs Correspondent Patsy McGarry ....
Following yesterday's publication - finally - of the Vatican's much-leaked Instruction concerning the criteria of vocational discernment regarding persons with homosexual tendencies, considering their admission to seminary and to Holy Orders, let us be grateful. For it is time.
Rome has this time gone so overboard on the homosexuality issue its primary achievement would appear to be the undermining of its own authority....
[Edited for length by webmaster]
The Pope's apologists will argue that preparation of the instruction was initiated by pope John Paul in the early 1990s and that Pope Benedict "inherited" it.
But that is too simple. His influence is all over it, not least from his days as prefect at the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), a position he held from 1981 until he was elected pope last April....
[Edited for length by webmaster]
... On Sunday, October 23rd - two days, coincidentally, before publication of the Ferns report - Pope Benedict announced the celibacy rule for priests was to stay.
On August 31st last he personally approved and ordered publication of yesterday's instruction on homosexuals and the priesthood.
It seems his papacy is on a path similar to that chosen by pope Paul VI in 1968 when he published Humanae Vitae.
That encyclical banned the use of artificial means of contraception and has been more honoured in the breach than the observance.
Its greatest casualty was respect for Rome's authority. That authority was eroded still further by yesterday's instruction.
[Edited for length by webmaster]
"It seems his papacy is on a path similar to that chosen by pope Paul VI in 1968 when he published Humanae Vitae."
Is that a criticism??? Because a few months after Humanae Vitae, Paul VI seemed so shocked by the "progressive Catholics" that he gave them, as some sort of pacifier, what I consider the greatest papal blunder of the past five centuries: the Novus Ordo Missae, which has been in use for exactly 36 years (November 30, 1969).
So, is the Healthy Priesthood Instruction another Humanae Vitae?... Certainly, because, as HV, it keeps Tradition; probably, because, as HV, it will not be followed by a rebellious episcopate.
I thought this interesting in light of the verbarrage on this issue:
http://www.tsowell.com/
About_Wri...ut_Writing.html
It called to mind this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product...glance&
n=283155
leading to this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product...glance&
n=283155
"homsexuality... had no social or moral value"
After reading that statement I thought it to be correct. Upon pondering it, I find it to be too kind, rather homosexuality has negative social and moral value.
Its more like a destructive cancer than a benign cyst.
"Its greatest casualty was respect for Rome's authority. That authority was eroded still further by yesterday's instruction."
What's the point of having authority is all you do with it is say whatever is popular? Authority in the Church is to be used to teach the truth. Those who don't believe Church teaching don't have any respect for Church authority anyway, so how could the Church maintaining her commitment to the truth "erode" her authority with them any further?
And by the way, was there not a hyperlink to this editorial column that could have been posted instead of a copy-paste of the entire body of the text?
Ah, well. Goodbye, Disordered Men!
Have you guys noticed how more and more our popular is starting to notice the value of real values that presuppose an objective standard of truth? Harry Potter is all about doing the right thing and the consequences of not doing it. It seems to me that the most significant of the new stuff coming out takes morality very seriously. We may not agree with the conclusions or actions that some of these works approve, but the seeds are there for a real debate on the meaning and value of life and the existence of objective moral standards.
...popular culture...
My letter in The Irish Times this morning:
HOMOSEXUALITY AND PRIESTHOOD
Madam, - I would like to congratulate Patsy McGarry on his remarkably clear-sighted response to the Vatican instruction excluding people with homosexual orientation from the priesthood (Opinion & Analysis, November 30th).
The document has been leaked for months, giving bishops and religious superiors time to calibrate their "interpretation". Yet the sting remains for ordinary gay men and women who are once again subjected to abusive language that will be repeated over and over again by those who fear and hate them.
The Church has learned much from its mistake in speaking of Judaism with contempt over many centuries, a mistake that contributed to the horrors of Nazism. Pope Benedict has been to the fore in expressing repentance for this, and he is loved by the Jewish people for it.
But in issuing venomous oracles against homosexuality, which are not based on any rational process of dialogue and consultation, the Curia is again making itself an instrument in the hands of hatemongers.
I fear that such dismal texts, however much the interpreters try to sugar them, are sowing a bitter harvest both for gay people and for a Church whose authority they further undermine. - Yours, etc,
Rev JOSEPH S. O'LEARY, Sophia University, Tokyo, Japan.
A pity you butchered McGarry's column, as it is available only to subscribers to The Irish Times.
McGarry, who is not popular with my fellow priests because he has been a scourge of the clergy in connection with abuse scandals, makes many valuable points throughout his long article, particularly in articulating the connections between the new Instruction and child abuse scandals. If this is not of interest to you, it could indicated that you do not care at all about the welfare of your Church except when you can use church documents to satisfy your homophobic reactions.
Dr. Blosser, if I may be so bold as to propose a new rule for your weblog:
Any post that uses any variation of the non-word "homophobia" unless in scare quotes will be deleted.
Sorry, I'm just tired of the Christian faith being deliberately mischaracterised with pro-homosexualist Newspeak.
Mr. Potter, I share your sense of frustration, yet this is becoming a far more pervasive problem than merely O'Leary's comments on this weblog. While it would be convenient to simply delete ad hominems grounded in genetic fallacies like this, my suggestion is that we call people on this and not let them get away with them.
If teaching the truth undermines the authority of the Vatican, so be it.
It's not a popularity contest, Father.
Phil, I trust that we are soon to be treated to a doctrinal analysis of limbo.
"Mr. Potter, I share your sense of frustration, yet this is becoming a far more pervasive problem than merely O'Leary's comments on this weblog."
I understand. Just had to vent a little.
Homophobia is a recognized psychological category, defined by the relevant authorities and figuring in dictionaries.
And what use is any of that? Mainstream psychology no longer recognises that homosexuality is a psychological disorder, but things don't stop being true just because we refuse to believe them.
Jesus' teaching that homosexuality is contrary to God's will is not an irrational fear of sameness, let alone an irrational fear of persons who pervertedly desire to sexually abuse persons of the same sex.
Hey John Hearn, you still on that "vacation"?
Mainstream psychology no longer recognises that homosexuality is a psychological disorder
-- in Europe and America -- but if you go to Africa, or Latin America, you can still find enclaves of pure unreconstructed ignorance and homophobic violence -- also in Arab countries where "sodomites" are frequently executed or flogged to within an inch of their lives.
The reception of this document by Timothy Radcliffe, Bruce Williams, Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor and other English bishops, a string of American bishops, and many others, is a revolutionary moment in the life of the Church. All are reading the document as a gay-friendly one, and are more or less telling the Vatican to get in touch with reality. The poor Polish Cardinal who signed the document must be wondering what is happening. Ecclesia locuta est.
Homophobia is a recognized psychological category, defined by the relevant authorities and figuring in dictionaries.
Though it hasn't yet made it into dictionaries, I notice that university English departments are now not only accepting but teaching the use of the terms "they" and "their" as a third person singular pronoun -- all under pressure of political correctness. Imagine the headache of being an immigrant trying to learn English as a foreign language! Widespread acceptance of bad grammar doesn't make bad grammar good. Neither does widespread acceptance of silliness make silliness wise. You as well as I know that homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness in 1973 by the American Psychiatric Association, not because of any new scientific discoveries, but because of the pressures of the National Gay/Lesbian Task Force. Enough said.
All are reading the document as a gay-friendly one ... Ecclesia locuta est.
Nonsense. The gay-friendly lobby is reading the document as a gay-friendly document. Testiculos homophilious locuta est.
"Testiculos homophilious locuta est."
Ha!Ha!Ha!
Gillibrand, the blogger of the wonderful Catholic Church Conservation blog, says:
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminster spins more than Cardinal Hume or Ton Blair.
" 'the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales makes clear in its 2004 document Cherishing Life, a homosexual orientation must never be considered sinful or evil in itself. '
"Latest document
'Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial.'
"A time to choose! Unless in newspeak an objective disorder is not evil."
http://cathcon.blogspot.com/
2005...estminster.html
"Jesus' teaching that homosexuality is contrary to God's will"
Jesus never said such a thing as far as I know - would you mind pointing to the section of the NT where Jesus the son of god said anything regarding that point?
For me there are quite rationale reasons why homosexuality is not that big of a deal these days for the majority of society. Previous generations had to worry much more about progreation and a high number of children to ensure success of the society. Our days that seem not the prime concern - besides lesbians most certainly can conceive one way or the other. Furthermore since a good number of gays and lesbians put many of us heterosexuals to shame as good parents we should most certainly clean up our act before even being able to say much against some of the great homosexual parents we start to see.
Many will of course continue to fight against this all - I most certainly hate to see my church going down that path- I know a good number of commited lesbian and gay couples with biological or adopted kids - very impressive.
I know a good number of very fine gay priests - very impressive people.
"You as well as I know that homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness in 1973 by the American Psychiatric Association, not because of any new scientific discoveries, but because of the pressures of the National Gay/Lesbian Task Force."
It was about that same time (1972, I think) that the non-word "homophobia" was invented by some psychologist. Although "homophobia" breaks down into the roots "homo" (Greek for same, Latin for man) and "phobos," (fear), nevertheless he defined it as an irrational, intense fear and loathing of "homos," an archaic slang word for men and women who desire to engage in sexually perverse acts with persons of the same sex as themselves. Thus, the formation of this non-word is analogous to a non-word like "Jewophobia" or
"Krautophobia" -- the fact that it's not a genuine scientific name for a genuine psychological disorder is shown by this mashing together of English slang with a Greek psychological term.
But apart from the frivolous method by which this non-word was constructed, it's also a manifest and gross abuse of the language to take the non-word "homophobia" and use it the way Fr. O'Leary and his ilk do -- to demonise those who agree with what Jesus and His Church say about homosexuality. If "homophobia" is a genuine psychological disorder, then it must be diagnosed by a professional, and it must involve really irrational and compulsive fear and terror, like the person who sweats buckets and loses control of his bodily functions at the mere prospect of going out of doors. Mere belief that homosexuality is a disorder and that homosexual conduct is a sin, or even mere prejudice and hatred of homosexuals, would not constitute "homophobia."
On the other hand, if those ARE what constitute "homophobia," then we can only conclude that the non-word was invented only to provide homosexuals and their allies with a verbal weapon with which to beat up their opponents.
"Jesus never said such a thing as far as I know - would you mind pointing to the section of the NT where Jesus the son of god said anything regarding that point?"
It's right there in the Gospels, where Jesus teaches on marriage and divorce. He banned divorce by quoting Gen. 1 -- "From the beginning it was not so." In the beginning God made man male and female. That's the basis for marriage -- male and female, not male and male, not female and female. Therefore Jesus excludes homosexuality -- it was not a part of nature as God created it, before sin entered into things.
That's why Jesus' apostle to the Gentiles spoke so clearly and forcefully against homosexuality, and why the Church (which speaks in Jesus' name -- the Church is, after all, His Body, inseparably united to Him, the Head) has ever since taught that homosexuality is contrary to God's will.
"Furthermore since a good number of gays and lesbians put many of us heterosexuals to shame as good parents we should most certainly clean up our act before even being able to say much against some of the great homosexual parents we start to see."
How is it being a good parent to deliberately and unnecessarily deprive children of their right to be raised by a father or a mother?
Or even more, to expose children during their formative years to the example of two adults indulging a psychosexual disorder instead of combatting it.
The Church is speaking in its reception and interpretation of the Instruction, loud and clear. Listen up, folks!
One of the points now being made, by Bruce Williams OP of the Angelicum, is that the church never taught that homosexual orientation is objectively disordered. The 1986 statement to that effect by Ratzinger, which has often been called the language of Manicheanism or even of Nazism -- entartetes Geschlecht etc. -- in reality refers to the objective disorder of Concupiscence!
Catechism #2357: "tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are always disordered'" (CDF, Persona humana). Not that the Catechism is authoratative or anything.
And Fr. Leary, with all due respect, your postings are so stuffed with trendy buzzwords, Call to Action catchphrases, and over-the-top non-sequiturs, ("homophobia," the Church's stance on homosexuals will lead to public floggings, "mainstream" science (which once measured people's heads to determine whether or not they were destined for a life of crime) etc., etc.)
I just think it's bizarre that the Church is supposed to teach just what the liberal secular elites already believe on this issue. In my book credibility comes from defending something you think is right and not giving in, even though it may be unpopular, not the other way around. Isn't that what we were all taught in grade school?
Just a thought.
Question: If the Pope rejects the episcopal interpretation and reception of his ruling, what happens? The Pope is unlikely to do that, but the present Pope is famous for his denial of theological status to episcopal conferences (another fall-out from the reception of Humanae Vitae) and may make this issue a test of authority. Such a battle of wills between Pope and bishops could be most satisfactorily resolved at a General Council.
Sam Schmitt, OF COURSE tradition has always declared the homosexual ACTS are disordered -- did you read my post at all?
The issue is whether homosexual ORIENTATION is disordered as Ratzinger clearly seemed to say in 1986 (for the first time in church tradition).
Now this is being interpreted as meaning that homosexual CONCUPISCENCE is disordered, a quite different thing.
"The Church is speaking in its reception and interpretation of the Instruction, loud and clear. Listen up, folks!"
If by "the Church" you mean "unfaithful and/or confused and ignorant Catholics," and by "reception" you mean "rejection," and by "interpretation" you mean "misinterpretation," then I would agree that unfaithful Catholics are indeed sending a loud and clear message -- one we would do well not to agree with if we value our eternal souls.
Since when has the disobedience and infidelity of the members of the Church ever succeeded in bringing about a reversal of a single Church doctrine? Just look at how unsuccessful the disobedience to Humanae Vitae has been in overturning the doctrine of the Church. We can expect the same outcome with those who refuse to admit that this new document really means what it says -- the unfaithful will be left behind in the dust as the Church continues her inexorable progress towards heavens gates.
A better guide to the document's interpretation is the one who wrote it, Cardinal Grocholewski:
A New Instruction, but Perennial Teaching
VATICAN CITY, NOV. 29, 2005 (Zenit.org).- The Holy See's new document on the admission of men with homosexual tendencies to seminaries and the priesthood does not contain any groundbreaking points, says a Vatican official.
Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, the prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, was responsible for writing the Instruction "Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with Regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders."
The document, published today, confirms that it is not possible to admit to the priesthood men "who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.'"
"The newspapers have talked about this document as if it were something extraordinary," said the Polish cardinal when presenting the text on Vatican Radio.
"But it is not strange that our congregation publishes specific documents regarding priestly formation because we have published some 20 documents since the [Second Vatican] Council concerning the different aspects of formation in seminaries," he observed.
Nothing extraordinary
"There has been a document on celibacy, on priestly chastity, talks on different impediments for the priesthood," the 66-year-old cardinal said. "Now this document has nothing extraordinary because, on the problem of homosexuality, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has pronounced itself many times.
"And it has pronounced itself many times because in this area in the world of today, there is a certain disorientation. Many defend the position according to which the homosexual condition is a normal condition of the human person, something like a third gender; instead, this absolutely contradicts human anthropology. It contradicts, according to the thought of the Church, the natural law, and what God has marked in human nature."
Cardinal Grocholewski explained that the new Instruction takes up again the distinction presented by the Catechism of the Catholic Church between "homosexual acts" and "homosexual tendencies."
"Homosexual acts are considered in sacred Scripture, both in the Old as well as the New Testament, from St. Paul and later in the whole Tradition of the Church [and] by the Councils as grave sins, contrary to the natural law," the cardinal said. "Therefore, these acts can never be approved."
Different, however, are "the inclination or deep-seated homosexual tendencies. This homosexual tendency is considered in the Catechism of the Catholic Church as an objectively disordered inclination," he added.
"Why?" asked the cardinal. "Because an inclination as such is not a sin, but it is a more or less strong tendency toward an intrinsically evil conduct from the moral point of view."
3 categories
"These persons therefore are in a situation of trial; they need understanding but must not be discriminated against in any way whatsoever," he added. "On the part of the Church they are called, as everyone, to observe the divine law although, perhaps for some of them, it will cost more."
The Vatican prefect continued: "We have adopted as principle three categories of people who cannot be admitted either to the seminary or to priestly ordination: those who practice homosexuality; those who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, and those who support the so-called gay culture.
"In regard to people who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, we are profoundly convinced that it is an obstacle for a correct relationship with men and women, with negative consequences for the Church's pastoral development."
"Obviously, if we speak of deep-seated tendencies, this means that there can also be transitory tendencies, which do not constitute an obstacle. But in these cases, they must have disappeared three years before diaconal ordination," specified the cardinal.
Regarding priests with homosexual tendencies, Cardinal Grocholewski clarified that "these priestly ordinations are valid, because we do not affirm their invalidity."
"A person that discovers their homosexuality after priestly ordination, must obviously live the priesthood itself, must live chastity," he observed. "Perhaps he will have greater need of spiritual help than others, but I think he must carry out the priesthood itself in the best way possible."
Mr. Potter I will spare you from further comments regarding the issue of homosexual parents etc. since I realize that it has not all that much to do with the recent Vatican paper ( the primary topic of this commnet box- other than that it is one aspect of 'gay culture'. Let's just agree to disagree.)
But for a change let me agree with you for once. You wrote :
"We can expect the same outcome with those who refuse to admit that this new document really means what it says"
I have to admit - I wonder about that point myself - for me it is a bit strange to hear /read all sorts of folks doing exactly what you observed Mr. Potter- downplay what the document really says.
One could be inclined to spreculate that in some ways the reaction to the document seems too perhaps furthermore indicate that indeed significant numbers of priests and nuns are homosexuals or felt at some point a clear pull that way.
Certainly we all seem to just witness all a collective 'Grasping for straws' by a good number of respected folks within the church.
For me personally: If the church indeed wants to get rid of homosexual priests - please just say so.
and do not beat around the bushe.
That way we can officially start the witch hunt that so many seem to be lusting for in our church as in many other denominations.
Most certainly, we should remind ourself from time to time that in times when plenty of people still die from starvation on this fine planet and the Leaders of a good many nations - including this fine nation finds not much wrong with developing 'more - and/or first and/or smarter and/or smaller atomic bombs' the issue of gay priest is relatively insignificant.
For me personally the real issue should be framed as ordination of all that are able and that god called to the altar.
For me, this most certainly includes besides the plenty of celibate gays that soak the ranks of our church most certainly woman and married folks.
And yes the proper church document in that context IMHO whould have been concerned with ensuring that all of the above groups are carefully considered,tested for ability to serve the church and than guided with great care and love towards priesthood.
As it is, this is yet another document that in my personal view will not stand the test of time.
Indeed as some observed restating of a 1961 position - not particular refreshing.
Society will move on and will continue on the neverending quest towards more not less freedom, more not less equality, more not less tollerance.
grega wrote:
"For me personally the real issue should be framed as ordination of all that are able and that god called to the altar.
For me, this most certainly includes besides the plenty of celibate gays that soak the ranks of our church most certainly woman and married folks."
"As it is, this is yet another document that in my personal view will not stand the test of time.
Indeed as some observed restating of a 1961 position - not particular refreshing."
My comment: God is not calling gays, lesbians, or women to the Catholic Priesthood. Sorry.
And seriously, if people want or need gay, lesbian, or women 'priests' and 'bishops', why not join one of the churches that offically go for this sort of thing?
From my perspective, any Catholic priest who publically identifies or promotes himself as a so-called 'gay priest', should get removed. By the way, when was the last time you heard a priest say, 'Hi, I am a straight priest'?
Grow up and Get a life Padre, not at all interested about what turns you on or off, nope.
Concerning the liberal-progressive-dissenters: Is it not high time for them to (1) change their thinking, or (2) leave the Catholic Church? One or the other.
==
The Washington Post has revealed the cover letter of the Instruction and it has very precise rules regarding current sodomite or sodomite-friendly priests: they MUST NOT rectors or teachers in seminaries.
----
November 4 Letter From the Vatican's Congregation on Catholic Education
We are happy to present you with the enclosed 'Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations With Regard to Persons With Homosexual Tendencies in View of Their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders.'
The new document is the result of a long process of preparation. Already in 1996, in fact, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith invited this congregation to prepare an instruction concerning the criteria for the discernment of vocations with reference to those with homosexual tendencies. Subsequently, the same congregation forwarded abundant documentation on the question.
The draft versions of the document were submitted, for examination, to the fathers of this congregation at the plenary sessions held in 1998, 2002 and 2005. Furthermore, the texts were sent for evaluation to the following dicasteries: the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, the Congregation for the Clergy, the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, and the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. In the plenary assembly of 2005 the fathers approved the instruction, acknowledging it to be helpful and very useful.
The Holy Father Benedict XVI, on Aug. 31, 2005, approved and ordered the publication of the present document, which had been presented to him by the prefect of this congregation.
The instruction is based on the conciliar and post-conciliar texts concerning the priesthood, as well as on those texts that refer to the problem of homosexuality, such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the documents of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The document does not treat all questions in the area of affective maturity and sexuality that require an attentive discernment during the entire period of formation. It only contains norms concerning a specific question, made more urgent by the current situation, and that is: whether to admit to the seminary and to holy orders candidates who 'practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.'
The aforementioned document does not call into question the validity of the ordination and the situation of priests who, in fact, have been ordained with homosexual tendencies or of priests in whom such tendencies have manifested themselves after ordination. Like all other priests, they must remember the promise that they made on the day of their ordination to live perfect chastity in celibacy. They are to continu
continue to exercise their ministry, taking care to live with integrity the mission they have received, in faithfulness to the Gospel and to the magisterium. Because of the particular responsibility of those charged with the formation of future priests, they are not to be appointed as rectors or educators in seminaries.
The Congregation for Catholic Education, in publishing this document, wants to offer bishops, major superiors and all superiors whom it may concern, a useful tool for carrying out an attentive and prudent discernment regarding the suitability of candidates for holy orders, from their admission to the seminary until their ordination. The norms of the instruction, therefore, must be taken into consideration in the drafting or updating of the 'Ratio Institutionis Sacerdotalis' of every country. Moreover, it is clear that the aforementioned norms are to be faithfully observed by all superiors to ensure a suitable preparation of future priests in view of the good both of the candidates themselves and of the church.
The text of the document will be published on Nov. 29, 2005, in L'Osservatore Romano. Until that date, it remains strictly confidential.
Hoping that this latest document will contribute to an even greater improvement of the formative path to holy orders, we willingly take the opportunity to express to you our sentiments of highest esteem, remaining
Yours most devotedly in Christ
Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, prefect
Archbishop J. Michael Miller, CSB, secretary.
Confirming, regarding "gay" priests: "Because of the particular responsibility of those charged with the formation of future priests, they are not to be appointed as rectors or educators in seminaries."
Is grega a Padre? God certainly called many homosexual men to the priesthood up to now -- including many popes, cardinals, saints etc. So the statement that God does not call gays to the priesthood needs some nuancing!
Canon law says that it is illegal to turn away from the priesthood those who are canonically suitable. Up to now gays were canonically suitable -- the sudden change in church policy is totally impracticable and even of doubtful legality; see Ladislas Orsy on this.
Happily the whole church is speaking loud and clear against this attempt to impose an impossibility. It has even less chance of success than John XXIII's encyclical urging the restoration of Latin.
The only vocal supporters of the Instruction are extreme rightists or homophobes. No one wants to be associated with them. The broad middle range of bishops and religious superiors take the document as a timely reminder of the importance of "affective maturity". The Conference of Men's Religious Superiors spend two pages welcoming the document's thoughts on that subject, then just one sentence on homosexuality, a sentence which thanks homosexual religious for their chaste and dedicated lives and reminds them that "we are all brothers". The highly respected and very Roman Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor has gotten into trouble for FOLLOWING a Vatican Instruction about secrecy on pedophilia (if I recall aright) so he is not going to be made a patsy of by the "bureaucracy of nothing" (as bishops see the Curia) a second time. He has forthrightly said that the document does not exclude gays from the priesthood -- and since the document itself remains vague on this point, who is to gainsay him?
Breda O’Brien Irish Times Dec 3
John L Allen jnr, the respected Rome-based reporter, takes the charitable view. He believes that the word "tendency" implies an inclination to act. Read in this way, the phrase makes sense. If someone has a deep-seated tendency to act on his homosexual inclinations, he has not come to terms with the demands of celibacy.
Fr Radcliffe interprets the phrase as meaning "someone whose sexual orientation is so central to his self-perception as to be obsessive, dominating his imagination." As he points out, it would apply equally to a heterosexual man who is similarly obsessive. However, some gay commentators have read "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" as a synonym for sexual orientation, and as a result have condemned the document as homophobic and hate-filled.
I do not believe the document to be either, but feel a deep sense of frustration that the phrase is so ambiguous. Why not write something like "someone whose homosexual tendencies verge on the obsessive, making it extremely unlikely that he could live out a life of celibacy"? Why, in such a sensitive area, should it not be crystal-clear?
As a result of the ambiguity, the document could be read as meaning that anyone who is gay is incapable of attaining "affective maturity". Again, affective or emotional maturity is a high goal. A better criterion for admission to the priesthood might be "a capacity to attain emotional maturity" rather than having already achieved it. For example, I am certain that I would not have passed an "emotional maturity" test on my wedding day.
What limited emotional maturity I have attained has come about in no little part through being married. Likewise, the experience of priesthood presumably helps people to mature.
However, whatever support married people are offered, or can offer each other, there is a lack of support available for priests, especially diocesan priests. There is much unnecessary loneliness in priests' lives.
This is the day of the Apostle of the East: shouldn't you suspend your sodomite-friendliness at least in honor of the great Xavier, Fr. O'Leary?
I think it would be worth the money to SUBSCRIBE to The Irish Times is order to read in full the articles by two priests published there today, as well as the pieces by Breda O'Brien and David Norris. Why do I not just print them here? The answer is CENSORSHIP. Phil Blosser has already censored a very good article from the Irish Times religious affairs correspondent and Dreadnought (John Heard) deleted all my postings of these articles, calling them "filth"! The Irish Times does not print filth. You rightists are really very brittle people if you cannot even take as much of the truth as filters through the chaste columns of The Irish Times!
The great Xavier was quite troubled by scenes of "sodomy" has saw on the boat to Japan. Many have speculated on a homosexual orientation of Xavier himself.
REMEMBERING SAINT FRANCIS XAVIER (see esp. last paragraph):
"Less than two months after his arrival in Hirado, at the end of October, Xavier, Fernandez, and the faithful Bernardo set off for Yamaguchi. They took with them only a small amount of clothing, a blanket, a few books, and a sack of roasted rice (Schurhammer, George. Francis Xavier. M. Joseph Costelloe, trans. Rome: Jesuit Historical Institute, 1982. 4 volumes. vol. 4,134-139).
"It was a very long 155 miles to Yamaguchi. They were fortunately able to travel the first leg by boat, but from Hakata they were forced to walk the remaining seventy-eight miles on foot. Travel over the rough, snow covered mountains was very difficult and lodging was less than adequate. 'At times, when they came to an inn at night, hungry, soaked, and thoroughly chilled, they were turned away. At other times their feet became swollen because of the great cold and deep snow…' (Ibid.:vol. 4,139-147) Upon reaching Yamaguchi, the three poorly clad strangers found a place to stay in the house of a man named Uchida. The news of their arrival soon spread throughout the city and many nobles and others were interested to hear about their new teaching, so Francis decided to interrupt his journey to preach the Gospel in this large city (Ibid.:vol. 4,152).
"Xavier went twice a day with Fernandez as his interpreter to one of the many streets or intersections where many people could be found. Here Fernandez would read aloud from the Japanese catechism and then give a commentary upon it, at times translating interjections by Xavier. Changing their location each day, the Jesuits eventually preached in every major gathering place in the city. Fernandez preached mainly on the creation of the world and man and of THREE SERIOUS SINS OF THE JAPANESE: abandoning God to worship 'wooden objects, stones, and senseless things,' THE SIN AGAINST NATURE OF SODOMY, and the infanticide practiced by many women. Xavier would stand next to him, silently praying for the success of his words. The reaction of the crowds was mostly poor and boys followed them, taunting and insulting the foreign preachers (Ibid. vol. 4,152-154)."
"Many have speculated on a homosexual orientation of Xavier himself"
Of course he was troubled by sodomy! What normal person isn't??? It is a deeply troubling sin, repulsive, disgusting, unnatural.
You are UNBELIEVABLE, Fr. O'Leary!!
----
Sancte Francisce, ora pro nobis! Sancta Dei Genetrix, interveni pro clero!
Despite Anatrella, a Vatican official interviewed by John Allen says the Instruction is not meant to exclude gays -- and the same is said by the US, British, Swiss, French, Belgian and Dutch hierarchies, with one or two individual objectors, and by the US Conferences of Men's Religious Superiors. So that is now pretty well established as the dominant interpretation, even though the letter of the text can be taken more naturally in the Anatrella sense. The Vatican has no plans to offer any further clarifications. No doubt it left that slight margin of vagueness quite deliberately and may even have coached the bishops in how to interpret the text (after all, many bishops will have asked Vatican officialdom about this, notably Murphy-O'Connor who has been part of the Roman landscape for decades).
A man who had worked for the Inquisition -- an organization that sent gay men to their deaths -- might well be troubled to see sodomy treated as a normal and innocent pastime, as it was for many Japanese -- and especially if he were attracted by Japanese male beauty. (Any evidence of women in Xavier's life?) It seems quite legitimate to speculate on Xavier's sexual orientation (not confusing ORIENTATION with CONCUPISCENCE -- which is objectively disordered -- or ACTS -- which are against natural law according to church teaching).
Happily the whole church is speaking loud and clear against this attempt to impose an impossibility. It has even less chance of success than John XXIII's encyclical urging the restoration of Latin.
Yeah, like Jesus' attempt to impose the imossible possibility: "Be ye perfect" (Matthew 5:4
.
Why do I not just print [the articles from the Irish Times] here? The answer is CENSORSHIP. Phil Blosser has already censored a very good article from the Irish Times religious affairs correspondent and Dreadnought (John Heard) deleted all my postings of these articles, calling them "filth"!
Fr. Joe, this is nonsense, and you know it. You've read the rules. Rule #3: Be concise: "No dumping." There's a VERY EAST way around this. Print out the articles on your OWN blog and post a hyperlink in our comment box. See? Easy as sushi!
If there were CENSORSHIP of heterodoxy on this blog, you'd have been outta here long ago! You'll find no CENSORSHIP here, except for rudeness, profanity, and such.
Fr. Joe, why are you so eager that the Vatican document be received by the Church's bishops in one way or another? Why does it even matter to you? Certainly we already know it doesn't matter to you what Rome says. You've made that clear. Why does it matter what a large number of bishops say? What authority do bishops have in your view, beyond their ability to garner media attention? Why do Church matters matter to you at all? Men of your conviction used to have the integrity to leave the Church. But I've guessed your answer to that already. There is no stable truth to be identified with that thing called the Church. It's all unfolding, evolving, Hegelian, Heraclitean flux. Why leave the Church just because you've changed, when you might change the Church along with you, eh? Lord, save us! We're drowning in jello!
It seems quite legitimate to speculate on Xavier's sexual orientation ...
But what propensity would lead a mind to want to do such a thing? Is there not something objectively disordered and purient about the very suggestion?
Besides, I find it ironic that more often than not, purient minds leap at "suggestions" that are not even there -- as in the comment where Fr. Joe suggested I was intimating something by placing the term "rut" between inverted quotation marks (and I wasn't even aware of a possible salacious significance)! (And yes, I do believe Fr. Joe is possessed of a purient mind. One needs go no farther than the track record of his comments about homosexuality on previous posts to see this.) Anyone who keeps a mental list of saints and popes who he thinks were "gay" or had a "homosexual orientation," is telling us a great deal more about himself than he may be telling us about anyone else.
I wrote:
"Grow up and Get a life Padre, not at all interested about what turns you on or off, nope."
"Grow up and Get a life Padre", - that pertains to any Catholic priest who publically identifies, displays, promotes or proudly advertises himself as a so-called 'gay priest' or 'straight priest'. I am not personally interested in hearing about their so-called 'ORIENTATION'. I suspect that any priest who would insist that everyone must know and accept them as a 'gay priest' or 'straight priest', needs to find a new line of work.
==
Benjamin, who works for the USCCB, says that "the chasms opened up between various episcopates throughout the country over [the Vatican Instruction's] proper interpretation is hardly news," and that, furthermore, it's overblown. In his opinion, the blowhard liberal bishops' opinions really won't make that much difference, and here's why: READ MORE HERE.
"[...] needs to find a new line of work".
My way of saying that something is probably seriously wrong with them.
==
Paul Borealis, how many priests do you know who publicly call themselves a gay priest? Among my wide personal aquaintance I can only recall one, Fr Bernard Lynch. It looks as if you are barking up the wrong tree.
I note that, to the contrary, the most horrendous sex abusers were very closeted about their homosexuality. Fr Sean Fortune, a very notorious pedophile who in the end committed suicide, roundly denounced the openly gay Senator Norris on TV!
Even Fr Lynch, when asked on TV if he was gay, said NO! Later he publicly expressed repentence for this, to the mystification of his interviewer, Gay Byrne (the Grand Old Man of Irish TV).
"how many priests do you know who publicly call themselves a gay priest?"
Perhaps you are right, I am barking for nothing. Maybe there are next to no 'gay priests'. If they exist, they do not talk to anybody about their condition and issues. But then it makes me wonder, how come so many seem to know about them? Odd.
For example, I read this online:
==
"I am coming out as a gay, chaste Jesuit priest because it hurts too much not to.
I deeply love the church and the Jesuits.
I have experienced unconditional love from Cardinal Adam Maida in granting me permission to function as a priest in this archdiocese."
http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.d...25/1070/
OPINION
==
So we have Rev. THOMAS J. O'BRIEN, SJ, as I quoted above, coming out as a 'gay priest', although it was no secret to Cardinal Adam Maida and maybe others. But what about this:
"U.S. Roman Catholic leaders praised the contributions of celibate gay priests in response to a new Vatican pronouncement against homosexuals in the priesthood, a move that could imply some dioceses and religious orders want flexibility in applying church policy."
http://www.localnewsleader.com/e...s-
00106718.html
How do "U.S. Roman Catholic leaders" know about "celibate gay priests", if they, the gay priests, are not talking?
==
I appears (see below) that the group 'Call To Action' claims to know about gay priests, bishops, and so forth. Is it possible that maybe a priest or two identified, displayed, promoted or proudly advertised being 'gay priests'?
==
"At a time of such turmoil in the Church, given the priest shortage and sexual abuse scandal, this is a grievous blow to gay priests, bishops and those who support them. How did the Pope decide that God has stopped inviting gay men to the priesthood after 2000 years? Gay men like the late Father Mychal Judge who died on 9/11, have faithfully served the Church throughout history and currently make up between 30 and 50% of our priests. It is incredible that after deciding not to take any new approaches to address the priest shortage at the recent Synod in Rome, the Vatican will now discourage gay celibate men from the priesthood."
http://www.cta-usa.org/press/
200...gaypriests.html
==
There goes those 'many' American bishops again.... where are all these "faithful gay priests and bishops"???
"Many American bishops recognize the outstanding contributions faithful gay priests and bishops have made and continue to make in service to the Church."
http://www.dignityusa.org/news/
0...23seminary.html
==
There are "many excellent priests who are gay," because Father Timothy Radcliffe reportedly knows all about them (see below)....
Okay, this is all a big lie, a mistake, OR somebody out there is claiming to be a 'gay priest' to people in the Church, at least to Fr. Radcliffe . Perhaps many 'gay priests' are doing this, talking...? Or is this in our future?
==
""Having worked with bishops and priests, diocesan and religious, all over the world, I have no doubt that God does call homosexuals to the priesthood, and they are among the most dedicated and impressive priests I have met," wrote Father Timothy Radcliffe, former master of the Dominican order, in the British Catholic weekly paper, the Tablet.
"And we may presume that God will continue to call both homosexuals and heterosexuals to the priesthood because the church needs the gifts of both," he wrote."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/
religi...1653352,00.html
"The Rev. Timothy Radcliff, former superior of the Dominican order, wrote in the British Catholic weekly the Tablet that the phrase could be interpreted as concerning men with a "permanent homosexual orientation."
"But this cannot be correct since, as I have said, there are many excellent priests who are gay and who clearly have a vocation from God."
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Intern...tory?
id=1354986
==
Of course I know many priests who are gay, either because they have told me so or because someone else has credibly told me. Anyone who is not living on the planet Jupiter knows some of his or her colleagues to be gay. But none of the priests I am thinking of advertises his gayness in public or -- above all! -- in sermons.
My point was that fear of priests going public with their gayness, in the manner of the courageous and honest O'Brien SJ whom you give a link to, is misplaced, since most priests are highly -- indeed hypocritically -- discreet about their sexuality. The situation may be different in the USA today, but I do not think so -- otherwise a priest outing himself would not make news headlines.
Well, this will be the last post:
"The Rev. James Martin, a U.S. Jesuit [...]
Martin predicted "a slow, silent attrition among celibate gay men who cannot accept the idea of staying in an organization that condemns their existence in the priesthood.""
http://www.cleveland.com/living/...4480.xml&
coll=2
My comment: What? How does Fr. Martin know? I do not know.
=
"The number of homosexual priests already in the Catholic Church is a matter for speculation; there are no definitive figures.
"The US bishops have discouraged researchers from asking questions about sexual orientation because they know that the results would make front-page news across the country," says Father Reese.""
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europ...ope/
4479466.stm
My comment: Ok, perhaps that explains it.
==
I think it is true that research was discouraged and that Richard Sipe had to leave the priesthood to publish his research, which is now considered essential reading for an understanding of the recent scandals.
My own final comment on the Instruction can be found on my weblog. Thanks to all of you who helped me get my thoughts on it in focus.
If a man recognizes himself as "gay", he should not be a priest. He could go find another profession, such as nightclub manager.
From today's Philadelphia Inquirer's Letter-to-the-Editor section:
"Vatican and gays I
The Vatican seems to have not one clue about what is happening in the world. The front-page item ("A new divide on gay priests," Nov. 30) about homosexuality among candidates for the priesthood is another glaring example.
I could quickly name two dozen among my devout Catholic friends who believe the priest-abuse scandal is entirely the fault of our inept (and occasionally deceitful) hierarchy. I am hard-pressed to think of anyone who believes the fault lies with our priests, some of them sinners like the rest of us. What do we have from the Vatican? As anyone informed might expect, not a word yet about the failures of our bishops or of the Pope who appointed them while there is much effort to scapegoat priests. UGH!!
John E. Connor"
"Vatican and gays II
Perhaps some good news will come out of the Vatican's instruction on gay clergy (Nov. 30). Hopefully, you will soon be able to report that many gifted, selfless, holy men - and women - have decided to minister in the independent Catholic churches. We welcome those who are already ordained, as well as those who are still on the journey to the priesthood of Jesus Christ.
As history has proved so well, one does not need to be in communion with Rome in order to be fully Catholic. The church passed down to us from the Apostles thrives specifically because so many of us have been liberated from fear and small-mindedness.
Rev. C. Christopher Tobin
Augustinians of the
Immaculate Heart of Mary
Aston
FrChristopher@AugustiniansIHM.net"
From their website:
"We minister especially to those who have been unable to participate in Mass or receive the Sacraments because of marital status, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or other circumstances.
Believing wholeheartedly that the love of Jesus Christ has no limit or condition, we welcome every person who comes to us.
Knowing that God created and loves every person equally, we commit our lives and our ministry to serving and healing those who have not been welcomed by other faith communities."
"Augustinians: Following on the footsteps of Luther since 1517"
That was a joke, naturally. The Augustinians were a wonderful order, but the "Spirit of the Council" killed them, as it did with even finer orders...
Have a look at my discussion of the Instruction on my weblog
Commenting by HaloScan
