The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionPreposterous theology responsible for sex abuse not gay priests
by Eugene Cullen Kennedy on Jun. 10, 2010
Did you know that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has a secretariat (and I am not making this up) "of clergy, consecrated life and vocations"?
If you think that's a mouthful, listen to its director, Fr. David Toups, discussing with New York Times reporter Paul Vitello the screening process U.S. seminaries have been using since the sex abuse crisis erupted, not only to screen out potential molesters but also, under complex recent guidelines from the Vatican, to keep gay men out of the priesthood.
Toups says, "The best way I can put it, it's not black and white. It's more like one of those things where it's hard to define, but 'I know it when I see it.'" (See: Prospective Catholic Priests Face Sexuality Hurdles)
Is it revealing, astounding, or scandalizing that an ecclesiastic should describe his discernment of gay vocation prospects like a one-eyed pilot looking for a landing field somewhere in the Bermuda Triangle? Or to use, "I know it when I see it," words famous for their use in Supreme Court arguments identifying pornography?
No wonder the Wall Street Journal recently headlined a story, "Church Response to Abuse Scandal Lacking a Clear Plan."
Were Vatican officials clear when they famously described homosexuality as a "disorder" and decreed that, sorry, but no priesthood for gays, no sexual life either, and, under Pope John Paul II, a curtailment of church pastoral outreach to them. While some militant gays protested flamboyantly in St. Patrick's Cathedral many years ago, the majority, who look just like you and me sitting in the pews, felt rejected by the church.
In 2005, the Vatican forbade accepting a candidate who "actively practice homosexuality." In 2008 the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education said that it wasn't enough "to be sure that he is capable of abstaining from genital activity," but it "is also necessary to evaluate his sexual orientation."
But how, seminary officials asked, was that understood or assessed? Mr. Vitello reports that screening programs are "increasingly standard" in barring gays from seminaries. Examiners now ask questions professionally appropriate in taking a sexual history for treatment purposes, but they are hardly justified, prudent, or perhaps even ethical to ask, as the Times reports, "When was the last time you had sex?," The "preferred answer" is "not for three years or more," but why is this preferred and perhaps the examiners and uncounted married men would give the same answer?
Subscribe to NCR
Want to read more about important issues in the life of the Church? A subscription to NCR will keep you up to date and informed.
There isn't much clear thinking in condoning such inquiries as "What kind of sexual experiences have you had?" Asking "Do you like pornography" sounds like the old confessional dialogue -- I had impure thoughts -- Did you entertain them? -- No, they entertained me.
There is not much professional subtlety in querying, "Do you like children more than people your own age?" or, in the great Vatican I reprise of how the candidate handles sexual urges, "Do you take cold showers, Do you take long runs?" One psychologist, sounding like an inquisitor boasting of his skill with the turn screws, claims, "We have no gay men in our seminary at this time."
The Condescension Award goes to the vocations director who denies a witch hunt is underway but adds with enough unction to anoint all Manhattan, "We do not think that homosexuals are bad people. But it has to do with our view of marriage. A priest can only give his life to the church in the same way that a man gives his life to his female spouse. A homosexual man cannot have the same relationship. It's not about condemning anybody. It's about our world view."
Such preposterous theologizing is far more responsible for the sex abuse crisis than permitting homosexuals to serve as priests. Thousands of mature gay men possess the one true qualification for the priesthood and it transcends sex, gender, or wacky theological ideas -- the ability to make healthy relationships with other people.
Ask lay people who pick this up right away. Turn all recruitment over to them immediately. They know who is healthy and who is not and they would quickly replace the question of whether we should keep gays out of the priesthood with a better one -- Who let so many immature, self-centered lovers of Vatican I vestments and clerical privilege into the priesthood?
[Eugene Cullen Kennedy is emeritus professor of psychology at Loyola University, Chicago.]
Editor's Note: We can send you an e-mail alert every time Kennedy's column, Bulletins from the Human Side," is posted to NCRonline.org. Go to this page and follow directions: E-mail alert sign-up. If you already receive e-mail alerts from us, click on the "update my profile" button to add Kennedy to your list.
"Who let so many immature,
"Who let so many immature, self-centered lovers of Vatican I vestments and clerical privilege into the priesthood?"
A GOOD QUESTION! This hits home for me in my parish where the founding pastor (while no longer here, but shows up periodically to hold court and be adulated) would not allow girls to be altar servers, had a Sunday Latin mass, allows Opus Dei in the parish for retreats and recruiting, hired a Vatican I-style religious education director, and exploits the ignorance of parishioners who need to up-date their theology.
Sounds like a wonderful
Sounds like a wonderful parish and marvelous Priest.
societies president
societies president extinctions running issue impact beginning
Come again, Diamontina?
Come again, Diamontina?
There are 2 phrases which
There are 2 phrases which should cause any normal Catholic to ignore any further comments. The first is any use of "spirit of Vatican II." The second is "need to update their theology."
And you would be the standard
And you would be the standard for the "normal Catholic"?
Is he also one of those who
Is he also one of those who "only give(s) his life to the church in the same way that a man gives his life to his female spouse?" I just can't believe anybody could be theologically bonkers as to say anything remotely like that.
As hard as it is to believe,
As hard as it is to believe, there are those(probably, many) who would say somthing like that and, unfortunatly, they are are the ones in power.
Please explain how this is a
Please explain how this is a "theologically Bonkers" statment exactly?
gratulations for your brave,
gratulations for your brave, modern & evangelical faith...
If lay people "know who is
If lay people "know who is healthy and who is not," why are there so many child molesters in schools, in sports, and in so many heterosexual families? There is no evidence that lay people have been any better at identifying potential child molesters that the church has, and Kennedy's statements appear to reflect his own bias rather than any professional standard.
The truly sad part in this is
The truly sad part in this is that the church is being prejudiced - definitely un-Christ-like. First, no link exists between homosexual orientation and pedophilia - I learned this in the mandatory child protection training required by my children's school. Second, there is no way an interviewer could determine a person's orientation without directly asking "Are you gay?" I know several people who are gay. Nothing about them is outwardly different from "straight" people. They are wonderful, caring people who would, if you needed the "shirt off their backs", give you not only their shirt, but would also find you a good jacket. That is more than I can say about many "good Catholics" in my parish who might be willing to help if the pastor will notice.
It is true that "no link
It is true that "no link exists between homosexual orientation and pedophilia". It is also true that most sexual abuse of minors (whether by clerics or others) is not pedophilia, which by definition involves pre-pubescent children. Most abuse falls into the category of ephebofilia, which is abuse of mid- to late-adolescents. While pedophiles do not have a preference for one gender or another, ephebophiles do demonstrate a gender preference. In other words, an ephebophile can be either homosexual or heterosexual. Since most of the victims of clergy sexual abuse were adolescent males, it seems ingenuous to me to categorically exclude a linkage between homosexuality and abuse of minors by clergy.
Eugene C. Kennedy is a breath
Eugene C. Kennedy is a breath of fresh air - and it seems that the Spirit of Life speaks through him and his esperience as a psychologist and teacher. It is sad that those in positions of authority fail to listen and to understand - they are blind and think that they can see - and in fact, they are blind guides, leading the blind. In their ignorance and blindness, they know how to issue superficial platitudes and bromides, but do not take the time to really listen and fail to engage in the struggle to understand. They sit in judgement from the pinnacle and therefore don't know how to understand their own involvement in sinful humanity and therefore assume that they are the chosen ones. How sad!
Isn't there a difference
Isn't there a difference between "a breath of fresh air" and personal halitosis?
Sad to say it. . ..but Mr K appears to have gone sour, week after week. . .Pity.
so, like, anonymous, dude,
so, like, anonymous, dude, you know, and I'm just saying, okay? but in ALL of your anonymous postings you always demonstrate how very much you can NOT stand my deeply beloved ncronline.org
dude.
and i'm just saying,
there is a solution
go to that ncregister wannabe, okay?
see what sour really is!
like Joseph Campbell said:"Follow your bliss!"
why make yourself so miserable, ok?
your hatred here is not convincing anyone, ok?
have fun
life is short
follow your bliss
and I am certain that father Kennedy in fact uses a very fine breathe mint.
Hey...old desert hermit
Hey...old desert hermit dude....give angry anonymous dude some room to rant...it's the democratic way and apparently the primary preocupation at nrconline.org regardless of whether your left, right, gay, straight, up, down, girl, boy, whatever...so let him unload his negative wave burden in good fun. It's pastoral and probably covered under one of the gifts of the Spirit of Vatican II. By the way, why do I picture George Carlin in a habit every time I read one of your posts?.....not that there's anything wrong with that.....we all miss George and his rantings although we probably wouldn't bring him home to meet the parents.
the parents brought him home
the parents brought him home to meet me, okay, sir dude?
well, not in person, we wished, but a nice Catholic boy from a mixed neighborhood in New York . . .kul . . .you know what I am saying.
but you are right.
comments here should be limited to active, paid-up subscribers only
which reminds me, mine's about to run out . . .
did they dump that wintery sean dude yet?
I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU AT
I DO NOT AGREE WITH YOU AT ALL OR YOUR SMART ALACK WAY OF PRESENTING YOUR DISAGREEMENT. HOW DOES THAT BUILD A ATMOSPHERE OF HEALTHY DISCUSSION?
I'm a 28 year old man who
I'm a 28 year old man who believes In the Church position on not allowing actively homosexual men into the Priesthood. Do we want the Church to truly become what the ignorant think it is. Or should 2000 years of Christian Morality change like a politicians party choice? We should first understand homosexuality before we can allow a homosexual into the Priesthood. Now I do disagree that there is a major difference between being a homosexual and a pedofile. One is much different then the other. I can speak from my personal life. Why don't we see if we can first handle being a laymen before being ordained for life! The Church is the Bride of Christ, let's respect this, no matter the problems that exist from within; human beings are not perfect !
Well, why don't we just
Well, why don't we just castrate all priests? That way they can't have sex with men, boys, women or girls! This witch hunt is getting ridiculous!
I agree with you about
I agree with you about maintaining a ban on sexually "active" homosexuals, just as sexually "active" heterosexuals should have no place in the seminary. Chastity is still a virtue. The problem here is disqualifying a man who has a homosexual orientation--even if he is not "active" sexually. This is bias and has no place in the Church of Jesus.
Active heterosexuality is a
Active heterosexuality is a fast ticket out of seminary. I've seen guys pack their bags for going to online dating sites.
It seems to me that there is
It seems to me that there is a world of difference between an actively homosexual man and a homosexual man. The latter I suspect is quite appropriate for the priesthood where the former may not be. In the same way the actively heterosexual man in not appropriate for training for the priesthood or the priesthood for the matter, I hope. At lease not today.
Hi Aaron. I'm sorry but I
Hi Aaron. I'm sorry but I couldn't let your post go without saying a word or two about it.
"I'm a 28 year old man who believes In the Church position on not allowing actively homosexual men into the Priesthood. Do we want the Church to truly become what the ignorant think it is."
Unfortunately, this makes it souond like anyone who does not agree with the church's position on homosexuality or gay men in the priesthood is ignorant. This is simply not so. There are countless, highly intelligent, well-read and well-educated people of great erudition who do not agree with this teaching. They are certainly not ignorant.
"Or should 2000 years of Christian Morality change like a politicians party choice?"
Aaron, morality is not necessarily concreted in for all time. It is often highly culture-bound and epoch-bound. For instance, in the time of Jesus, it was perfectly moral to own slaves. That has changed. In the sixties, it was thought by some that women who used the contraceptive pill were morally wrong, even loose. This too has changed. I could go on, but you get the drift. As our knowledge increases and we understand things better, sometimes our attitudes to morality change as well. This leads me on to your next point.
"We should first understand homosexuality before we can allow a homosexual into the Priesthood."
The first part of this statement I agree with. And we do now Aaron. We understand homosexuality so much better than we did, even just fifty years ago. As a psychologist, I can tell you that we understand the substantial genetic component in homosexuality and the fact that being gay is not a behaviour but an identity, a part of the self, in fact, as much a part of the self as is personlaity or intelligence.We know that being gay is not an illness nor a sign of future psychological instability. We mental health practitioners removed it from our list of disorders way back in 1973 and spent the following twenty years doing further studies to confirm the decision; a decision now beyond question. A gay identity emerges around puberty and develops through adolescence, probably having been shunted down certain pathways in utero. It is not chosen, nor can it be changed.
Gay men have always been a part of the church. They are sensitive leaders with great giftings in the area of teaching, creative liturgy and relationship building; this last being exactly the pre-requisite that Eugene Kennedy offers in his excellent article. We don't need to see if gay people can "handle" being laymen. We already know we can do that. And we can do that as well as any straight person.
For those gay people who feel the call of God on their lives to a priestly vocation, there is absolutely nothing in their sexuality that would or should preclude them from answering that call. God loves gay people too. But gay people who suffer under the traditional teachings of the church, which holds itself exempt from modernity and science in this area, need to find a way to accept and love themselves too.
This was a fantastic
This was a fantastic response. Thank you so very much. I wish you were in the Church's hierarchy because I am very concerned that what we are getting now is simply dumb-downed prejudice.
I agree completely. So what
I agree completely. So what are the laity of the church(which I would think makes up a healthy majority of the Rom. Catholic church, going to do about the heirarchy running back to and wanting to live in the 1500's A.D? Are we going to accept these new(really "old")translations of the Missal? I say no, ignore them and answer them with a NO we are not going in that direction! Latin Masses and the priest with their back to us...what planet are they on? It certainly isn't the planet earth. Are we going to put up with them deflecting this pedophile issue of committing crimes and then covering them up? Or are we going to come together and stand up to these delusional "men" who feel like they and only they have a pipeline to Jesus Christ. I cannot even imagine Jesus saying these stupid things. And why do they feel they are our parents and they have every right to tell us what to do? We need to grow up and take our sacramental promises seriously and live them!
Who said they were the bosses? Why do we act like children? We are adults or so I believe we are and we need to bring the message of Jesus Christ to them. What is it about lay people that we remain so docile and either put our heads in the sand or vote our disgust by leaving the church in droves!
Are we living in fear of them because there is no reason for it. God doesn't want us to live in fear. I personally believe God id crazy in love with us and is urging us to be prophetic and right the course that our so called leadership is taking!
We need to demonstrate (peacefully) and not let them forget that we the church are horrified by their actions and their false beliefs and are tired of them sticking it down our throats! Jesus knows we are better than this pathetic display.
In Nazi Germany, people just put their heads in the sand and let what ever happened happen and then said,"Gee we didn't know what that foul smell was that the wind was blowing in from the countryside?" And the holocaust was allowed to happen. How are we being any different?
These men starting with Paul the VI started undoing what Vatican 1 had done. Why, not sure but I think they saw where John the XXIII was heading with all of this and it was back to a more equal footing for everyone in the church. They didn't like seeing that they were going to be no higher or powerful than the next person in the pews. There goes their meal ticket and the lovely places they live rent free.
So get out there and tell them that their lifestyles and sheltering criminals will not be tolerated anymore. We will respect them as fellow human beings who have the light of Jesus within them(although hard to see these days) but no more than we respect every person we run into because whether they be homosexual, heterosexual, man or woman we all possess the DNA of God.
Start using your voices and disagreeing with what they are doing. And to really hit the point home, stop the money!!!! STOP THE MONEY...STOP THE MONEY...STOP THE MONEY!
Thank you for this prompt,
Thank you for this prompt, educated and compassionate response.
Dr. Edser: What a
Dr. Edser: What a beautifully stated, articulate response to Aaron's comments. The Church needs to catch up with science. The hierarchy displays a completely out-of-touch-with-the-times morality; they seem to be reacting as if to protect the false walls they have built around themselves. As a female Catholic, I sense and am accosted by similar prejudice supported by the same tired excuses and moral reasoning. Our hierarcy needs to replenish itself with people who are intelligent and educated, willing to look at themselves and place themselves with the Church of the People. They are sadly out of touch! They who do not lead will find themselves without followers. I follow the true Shepherd, "I know my sheep and they know me."
Mary -- We need to remember
Mary -- We need to remember that the Catholic royalty have for centuries have opposed virtually every scientific advancement since Gutenberg!
They opposed the discoveries of Galileo and Copernicus because the two found out their discoveries proved the Earth-centered universe to be a fallacy, thus threatening the royalty's political and social power.
The royalty opposed all forms of discoveries in medicine, because they found that illnesses and diseases were caused by germs and viruses, and NOT curses, spells and worse of all, God's disfavour, thus threatening the royalty's grip on the people.
The royalty opposed the first heart transplants because they still believed the soul rested there.
The royalty opposes all forms of sex education, because it threatens their supposed "expertise" in the field, just as they opposed the beginnings of psychology; also because it threatened their political and social power.
All of this backlash by the royalty in Rome and other fundamentalist camps is in direct opposition to the advances and evolution in society. They want to return to the days where they and they alone held absolute power over the lives in their control. Such power is like a drug, and these uber-conservatives have been going through withdrawal symptoms for decades.
They cannot fathom anyone outside their limited intelligence and experience to be better than they are, specifically due to the fact they've been told by their elders about the good old days when they had the power to stop a movie from being shown or heavily edited to spare their delicate sensibilities, to ban a book because it talked about a taboo subject like a woman taking chage of her fertility, etcetera.
It's time the Catholic Church joins the 21st Century instead of trying to live in the First.
COPERNICUS Oh my God I dont
COPERNICUS Oh my God I dont believe my eyes this is supposed to be a Catholic web site.
I just finished a day ago writing to chessbase who took it upon themselves to repeat the old canard about Copernicus though they did not conflate him with Galileo as this blogger here did. Do me a favour read the articles of Wikipedia on the two astronomers and clear your head of the Marxist atheist positivist nonsense and lies.
No the Church did not oppose science it fostered it promoted it indeed there would be no science without the Church transmitting the Ionian Greeks knowledge philosophy and science to the modern world.
As far as Copernicus goes two popes and three cardinals encouraged him to publish and lecture on his theories. They practically ordered him to get it out not suppress it.
Their main interest was though the eventual reform of the calendar from Julian to Gregorian which we still use.
The fight was between a nearly two thousand year old Aristotelian and Ptolemaic world view and the emerging new one which was also the same age as the educated Greeks and Romans knew of the sphericity of the Earth and some evn had thoughts of heliocentrism. Even Cicero in Somnium Scipionis showed he understood space and the Solar system. So did BTW Dante.
Dont fall for the village idiots delusion of what the Church was for two millenia.
Even the fairly neutral Wikipedia has got it right.
You pobably believe that Colombus was afraid of falling off the edge of the Earth. No he KNEW it was a sphere or a globe.
One word: Modernism.
One word: Modernism.
That certainly was well
That certainly was well stated, but you showed your hand with this line.
"Aaron, morality is not necessarily concreted in for all time."
Unfortunately that is not a Catholic understanding of Moral Theology. Moral Theology in the Catholic mindset works off the fundamental notion that we believe in the existence of Moral Absolutes. God is the source of all that is Good and True, God is absolute. Which, would preclude that morality is indeed concreted for all time. You represent a protestant notion of moral theology (for more information see Paul Tillich "the protestant principle) .
Your view of moral theology can truly allow for anything given the right set of circumstances or culturally defined parameters. You quote slavery as "moral" in the time of Jesus, where do you get this from? Who said it was moral?, it existed, but what is your basis for calling it moral? And you do realize that the Catholic Church still believes that the use of the birth control pill for the purpose of preventing pregnancy in a sexually active woman is a moral evil? That hasn't changed, as you state.
All new understanding about same sex attraction is irrelevant to its morality. You can say the same about pedophilia, we may understand it more, perhaps even on a genetic level, it doesn't have one thing to do with the morality of the issue.
The Catholic Church has stated time and time again, that same sex attraction is not a sin in itself. But pursuing a sexual relationship with someone outside of marriage is a moral evil. Absolute, always and everywhere, no amount of new "information" can ever change that.
Jeff, you are making one big
Jeff, you are making one big thinking error after another here. You continue to view this matter through a distorted lens that prevents you from being objective, and I can show you how. You continue to draw a parallel between homosexual orientation (which is fixed in fetal development just as heterosexuality is - no difference there) and the behavior and attraction of pedophilia which is a learned response to pre-adolescent children. The two do not have anything to do with each other, unless one wishes to deepen and prove as right their own prejudice and fear-based bigotry. As for your stance on morality and the Church's that, too, is on shakey ground. All morals are not absolute, not even in the theology of the Catholic Church. This is why there are some theologians who specialize in what is called moral theology. The Church has indeed changed its positions in some moral matters, but it happens in painfully slow ways that put the Church very, very far behind the situations Catholic of any year face and must deal with. New knowledge is never, as you assert, "irrelevant" to morality.
Any real moral theologians out there who can help us understand this further?
Thank you, Dr. Edser, for
Thank you, Dr. Edser, for adding another reasoned and well-studied voice to this particular issue. In order to stress the point a bit more, and I hope I am not being repetitive here too much, the Church has a very long history of denying scientific facts (that have been replicated over and over and over in properly structured research from many sources) when it suits its purpose, and accepting scientific findings when it is to its liking. Those that are ignored are the ones that threaten the status quo of Church teaching, and is rejected in order to protect tradition and what has been said before. It is not at all about advancing the meeting of the needs of its faithful. Again, thank you for your contribution.
I am not sure that we
I am not sure that we understand homosexuality but it is clear that you dont. You buy wholesale the gay self serving urban myth that they cant help it this is the way God made them they really found themselves. Rot. Lies or self delusion.
There was a book out some years ago stg like Homosexualities which outlined some seven different kinds. Yes there were some who got their CNS wiring wrong perhaps overwhelmed by a massive surge of oestrogen and progesterone from mama in utero. These would be the legitimate hormonally and neurologically predestined gays but that presumes that we accept predestination and abrogation of free will.
Which brings me to the second group. Those who choose it as a cultural or moral rebellion being disgusted with macho sexual fascism and double standard and violence of most males.
THE OTHER GROUPS ARE OCCUPATIONAL, you may start out as normal but since all ballet dancers are gay the pressure is immense to comply.
Then the situational no chance to rape women in jail or in the navy so you follow the adage What tradition of the Royal Navy? Buggery and rum. Etc you can make up the other categories.
Then there are the hypersexed who just cant control themselves the poor dears if they cant get young women old ones will do or children or boys or if none of that is available travel as sex tourist to Thailand. This group merges into pederasty bisexuality and yes epheboi who were 17 y o boys BTW.
The psychoanalytic explanation was that an accidental sex act somehow got associated with a male, causing homosexuality; with a part of the body fetishism; an animal, bestiality; with a cadaver, necrophilia. You get the idea a sort of imprinting of perversion or paraphilia.
So most gays are facultative not compulsive. And most compulsive ones are exactly the same as drug addicts internet food alcohol gambling lottety ticket bingo addicts.
Then of course we have the Tiger Woods the sex addicts. All these addicts will firstly deny their addiction {oh I was also a multi addict of nicotine and caffeinE yes those are addictions too, smoking and coffee drinking}.
The gay community is to be congratulated for being the only addict group to convince society that their addiction is normal healthy and preferable and equal to normal nonaddicted reproduction. Narcotic addicts and alcoholics admit to being alcoholic and narcomaniacs. Curious that the founder of that Mexican cult was not just accused of fathering children molesting seminarians but was also accused of no he was a proven morphine addict and an alcoholic.
One final point about sex inversion this occurs among animals due to environmental stresses males actually become females and vice versa.
The stress of forbiddeen heterosexual outlet may predispose to sexual inversion ex post facto. You are forbidden to even think of sex with women therefore sex with younger seminarians becomes OK as it is not explicitly forbidden.
I also know of women who bore and brought up normally children of their own their abusive men died or left them but come menopause somehow the raging and flickering hormones musta got to them and they became predaTORY BUTCH LESBIANS.
Finally we all have the capacity of becoming making ourselves into saints or villains law abiding and criminals and a- homo- or hetero- or bi-sexual.
Or all of these at different stages of our life.
Deaf prioress and the novicia. Dear girl you really want to leave our sacred mother house? Why? I want to become a prostitute. Say it again. I cant hear so well. I want to be a whore. Oh thats all right dear girl I thought you said you wanted to be a protestant.
A NOTE ON THE DRIVEL ABOUT CELIBACY BEING THE CAUSE. WRONG. Sexual repression and inversion maybe but most of my patients who molested young boys and epheboi were married Protestant clergy not Catholic priests. They evidently were not getting their jollies from their wives or else were hit with age related inversion of preference of sexual object. QED.
"2000 years of Christian
"2000 years of Christian Morality"
Whatever could it be that you have in mind with that quote. 2000 years of Christian Morality runs the gamut from one end of the continuum to the other, replete with all matters of vice and immorality to a select emerging holy one as John XXIII. If on the other hand you believe the quote is a factoid, which it is, that the 2000 years are holy ones, then the "Church...truly become(s) what the ignorant think it is".
I worry about the Roman
I worry about the Roman Catholic Church, which I have been a member for 75 years, is obsessed with SEX! The big problems according to the Vatican and most Bishops are abortion, homosexuality, any thing about sex. Of course, they have a huge problem with women.
Yet, I don't leave. I love the Eucharist, the Sacraments, the prayer life. I stay.
Please official Roman Church become more accepting and loving. Be less judgmental and condemning.
I hear you, Jim! I thought
I hear you, Jim! I thought "catholic" meant universal. Why, oh why, then, aren't we reaching out to everyone??
The Church cannot condone or
The Church cannot condone or accept as good, that which is evil and sinful. It is not loving to let people think evil is good and good is evil. The Church shows us the narrow way to everlasting life. The Church does not condemn sinners, it offers them forgiveness, but it can't pretend that sin is not sin. A site I found helpful with sorting this out in my own life was 'Chastity - in San Francisco?' You can Google it.
Mercy and forgiveness are
Mercy and forgiveness are God's territory.
"The Church does not condemn sinners, it offers them forgiveness,"
The Church is not God.
Wrong. Check the Catechism of
Wrong. Check the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
ok. "God is Love" is the
ok.
"God is Love"
is the Church Love?
nowadays?
I mean,
outside of the Spanish Mass?
Jim - thank you for your
Jim - thank you for your wonderful comments. I am trying to find a way "back" into the church for, as you so well state, "the Eucharist, the Sacraments, and the prayer life," but I am finding its continued homobia under the self-serving guise of "morality" highly alienating.
Jim, Everyone, not just the
Jim, Everyone, not just the Catholic Church, is interested in sex. Look at the success of Sex and the City or the fact that pornography is the most searched item on the internet. The Catholic Church does have a teaching on sexual morality and is obliged to present that teaching, first to its own members, including you and me, and secondly to the outside world. Unfortunately for the outside world, the Church's teaching is often diametrically opposed to its approach. It teaches that physical genital sex should happen only within the relationship of a married heterosexual couple and that sex should be open to new life. These are the parameters that the Church has laid down from the times of the Apostles. Your age and my age are irrelevant as are the OpEds of Maureen Dowd or Joan Chittister. If you cannot accept the Church's teaching on this matter, perhaps you should try to find a more congenial Church, e.g. the Episcopalians.
At times like this I wish the
At times like this I wish the Episcopalian Church did not exist. It seems it's the favorite excuse for True Catholics to jsutify refusing to hear what any other Catholic has to say. Not too mention it also serves to make those same True Catholics feel ever so much more saved and superior for 'taking the narrow' road.
Aren't we all called to take
Aren't we all called to take the "narrow road"? It is equally frustrating for us Catholics who remain faithful to the teachings of the Church on these issues, to hear those who don't act as if they are the great oppressed. As if their struggle with sin and temptation is so much greater. That they were somehow singled out. Everybody has struggles, gay, straight, young, old. You say that we refuse to hear what you have to say, we've heard, trust me. We've heard over and over and over again. We don't feel more saved or superior, those are your perceptions. We simply join you in the struggle against sin, some just do it more quietly with trust that Christ knew what he was doing when he founded the Church on Peter and the Twelve.
This "Church" is getting so
This "Church" is getting so scary. I like to tell myself that the reason I remain Catholic and attend Mass is for the Eucharist. The "Church" is succeeding in trivializing everything scared for me. Need I mention, I am a woman.
C. Alif, I am so with you on
C. Alif, I am so with you on your comment. I love the Mass and lately I have been dragging myself there and I am in a parish with good priests and reverent, beautiful liturgies. I am sad at what it happening - the rigid, narrow interpretations of the faith by the current leadership and the ridiculous, adolescent focus on sexual matters. The "investigations" of our nuns and the excommunication of Sister McBride - this is not the church I grew up in.
I'll not pretend that my
I'll not pretend that my church (The Episcopal Church) has been free from instances of abuse, but one element among many that I think helps us decrease instances of clerical abuse is as you propose: laity have a big say in selecting clergy.
Before one can even go to the diocesan committee or get the bishop's approval to study in seminary, one has to get the approval of a priest who knows you well as well as approval from a parish discernment committee and the parish vestry. I'm not as familiar with the Roman Catholic process for becoming a priest, but it seems to me that there are (or at least have been) a few too many "easy ins" and not enough checks and balances among some dioceses and orders.
Kennedy writes: "Such
Kennedy writes: "Such preposterous theologizing is far more responsible for the sex abuse crisis than permitting homosexuals to serve as priests."
Oh. So his line is that bad theology is the cause of the sexual abuse crisis.
Well, at least he's got an original take on it. He does not, however, have an argument to back up his claim. He does not offer a single sentence of rationale for his claim that bad theology is responsible for the sexual abuse crisis.
I detect a new motto at NCR: Editors - Who Needs 'Em?
Jim You said it all. Why do
Jim
You said it all. Why do I stay in a Church that teaches women to "know thier place" because I love the sacrements, my rosary and my local parish priest. Perhaps, the women and gay men who are active in parish ministry in everything from washing and ironing altar linens to being lectors and running the offices, etc, should just sit -- in the pew and pray. Pray tell who then would make the cardinals and bishops meals, wash their clothes, etc. If we are to continue to have a celibate priesthood, then shouldn't that be the issue -- CAN YOU BE CELIBATE. Otherwise, I would prefer them screening priesthood candidates using accepted pyschological tools to determine pedophiles.
How about all the women, nuns
How about all the women, nuns included just go on strike? Maybe they would get it when they have to do all the menial things that is the woman's "station" in life.
.What kind of person would
.What kind of person would answer such questions? Certainly not someone qualified for the priesthood.
The crux of this issue is
The crux of this issue is that the Church as taught always that homosexual acts are disordered and gravely sinful. If you don't accept the Church's teaching on that point, then nothing will make sense to you. It would be like if you see no problem with blasphemy, you might have the idea that the Church is trying to limit your freedom of speech by saying it's sinful.
"Eugene C. Kennedy is a breath of fresh air"
- Hardly. His hot air is indistinguishable from the fumes of secular and pop culture. His column seems to be little more than an echo chamber of modernist fads.
And while I still disagree with him on many things, at least Fr. McBrien's column doesn't have to pretend to be clever.
Pete the Greek, When the AMA
Pete the Greek,
When the AMA and all of psychology say that homosexuality is predetermined through your chemistry, genes, etc., don't you think it is time to change an ancient point of view? It is one thing when we didn't have that research and information but it is another to just ignore and accuse people's sexual orientation as being the work of the "devil." This pedophile scandal had nothing to do with homosexuality. It had everything to so with some men and some women having a sexual disorder that causes them to love having sex with children. I feel sorry for them but they should not be allowed anywhere near children and what the heirarchy did is unconscionable. Not every homosexual person nor heterosexual person have this disorder.
So you cannot point out one group of people as it is a sexual disorder that occurs in men and women no matter what their sexual orientation. Everything that comes out of the hierarchy's mouths is not infallible and there are only two infallible decrees and they were only voted on (without a majority of bishops and cardinals present)at Vatican I. And it was voted on under much duress. They are that the pope can speak infalliably but you have to go through a lot of steps to do so and that Mary's body was assumed into heaven. Neither one will I lose sleep over. And as I say it was a aborted council and most of the hierarchy were not present.
So I wish people would quit believing that everything that comes out of the hierarchy mouths is carved in stone. It never was that way and it will never be that way. Thank God!
So free yourself from their propaganda as they are really pulling the wool over your eyes. As always with Jesus, it is your choice to make a educated and faith filled choice or not.
"When the AMA and all of
"When the AMA and all of psychology say that homosexuality is predetermined through your chemistry, genes, etc., don't you think it is time to change an ancient point of view?"
- I'm not certain of the research you mention, but the answer is no.
Let's flip it around: I know of some research that states that many people, through some genetic anomaly, are predisposed to aggression and violence. Because of this, should the Church rethink it's ancient 'point of view' on violence and killing? Of course not.
It's not a point of view, either. Try reading the New Testament, particularly Paul's teachings. Nowhere does he say it's a 'point of view'. It's teaching that's not going to change.
"It had everything to so with some men and some women having a sexual disorder that causes them to love having sex with children."
- Your statement here contradicts your earlier point of view. If these people have a inclination to have relations with children, why should their actions be treated differently than the normal idea of homosexual relations? By what objective standard, as the social 'yuck!' factor is not objective. You at once excuse sin because of an inclination, and then condemn the sin of others who also have an inclination toward that sin. You have a quite obvious double standard. It is actually a double standard that is quite common in progressives, however. And I'm not the first or only one to notice. Do a Google search and you'll see that NAMBLA is also calling foul on that standard.
"So I wish people would quit believing that everything that comes out of the hierarchy mouths is carved in stone."
- The teaching that homosexual acts are sinful is not something that just 'came out of the hierarchy mouths'. It's well over 2000 years old, has been firmly developed and explained. Unless you wish to dismiss St. Paul and all the doctors and teachers of the faith over the last 1800+ years because it is convenient for you to do so.
"So free yourself from their propaganda as they are really pulling the wool over your eyes."
- I don't quite buy into the asinine conspiracy theory that would require that almost 2000 years of moral teaching to be 'pulling the wool over my eyes'.
"As always with Jesus, it is your choice to make a educated and faith filled choice or not."
I have disagreed with the Church on somethings, temporal things with which people have disagreed with (including saints) at various points throughout Her history. But when it comes to faith and morals, which the Church has FULL AUTHORITY FROM CHRIST to teach, I will accept what she says, even if they are difficult.
In case you need reminding, the Church has taught that having homosexual inclinations or temptations IS NOT EVIL. Just as it is not evil for those afflicted with genetic disorders to be tempted to violence or rage. Nor is it evil to be tempted to theft, hate, envy, etc. God in His wisdom gives all their special cross to bear. You and I each have ours that we struggle with. It becomes sinful when we cease to trust God will help us overcome it and give in to our particular sin.
If a person is willing to
If a person is willing to commit to a life of chastity and celibacy, that person's "orientation" - or lack thereof - becomes immaterial, doesn't it? The Church seems to be saying that they want healthy heterosexual men who are willing to give up that sexual desire. What about a person who is asexual? I've known many people in my life who can best be described as asexual - they have no interest in males or females in a sexual way.
Also, if a person is willing to commit to a life of chastity and celibacy, that person's gender can be immaterial as well.
I'm now 55 years old. I was
I'm now 55 years old. I was ordained in 1980. I certainly enjoyed active ministry, but in 1992, when I met another man that I fell in love with, I left the priesthood to pursue another path of unconditional love. Today, my partner and I are together for 18 years. It's been such a happy, life-giving decision and life. God had another plan for me. The spiritual life is still so important but religious life (at least in the RC Church) is really not about finding real freedom, unconditional love, social justice or healing (from my perspective). As a gay man, I really think the hierarchy has always had a dysfunction over the years regarding most areas that have anything to do with sexuality (i.e. mandating celibacy and straight male priesthood, human reproduction, human sexual development, etc.). It seems there's an inability for the bishops to truly reflect or "stand outside the institution" to see itself objectively. The elements of "control", "dogmatism" and "fear" have replaced "collaboration", seeing Truth as dyamic instead of static, and "love." Having left the Church myself, I have seen, heard and touched the works & heart of God and God's Universe outside the institution that I certainly wish the hierarchy could experience. It's amazing and awe striking how present God is beyond the institution in the lives, work, and families of us gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered folk. That truth needs to be acknowledged, validated and incorporated within the Church, otherwise it will always be less than it could be for not listening to the DYNAMIC Spirit of the Creator of us all!!!
How sad for you.
How sad for you.
I can agree with you on this
I can agree with you on this statement
"but religious life (at least in the RC Church) is really not about finding real freedom, unconditional love, social justice or healing (from my perspective)."
No it's not about those things. It is about finding yourself in union and in love with Christ. If you loved him rather than your personal pleasure you would keep his commandments. When you made your vow of celibacy did it mean anything to you? Why would you break a promise to Christ?
How do we know that these
How do we know that these seminary officials acting as inquisitors - and rather incompetent ones it seems by the questions they ask - aren't themselves homosexuals? After all, they entered the seminary before all this inquisiting started. Shouldn't we start with inquisiting the sexuality of these seminary officials? And shouldn't we start by inquisiting the sexuality of those who are going to inquisit the sexuality of the seminary officials now doing the inquisiting? Perhaps we ought to go all the way back to the Apostles? I dare say St. John, resting his head on the Lord's bosom, wouldn't stand a chance.
The stupidity never ends.
The clergy in charge no longer believes in Grace, so they turn to amateur shrinks.
Most educated folks
Most educated folks understand that when 80% of the sex abuse cases aer with teen boys, it's not theology that should be looked at.
I am young priest...healthy,
I am young priest...healthy, heterosexual celibate… and loving it! I fully accept, teach and defend the Church's teaching on human sexuality. Generally I find (former) Father Kennedy to be gravely mistaken. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I have to agree with him on one point: It is very difficult to determine whether or not a man suffers from a homosexual disorder. How can you tell? They can seem very healthy and normal, until the truth is revealed, often in very detrimental ways.
The Church needs men who are mature, integrated, respected and responsible to be accepted into the seminary and ordained to the priesthood. Yes, there are some men who are just obviously flamboyantly gay, for whatever reason. I do not believe such men should be considered for the priesthood at all. On the other hand, I had a couple of classmates who "came out" about their homosexual disorder. Thankfully, they chose other occupations. I swear that I never would have known in a million years that they were homosexuals unless they had told me. Maybe psychologists have developed a good tool to determine whether a man suffers from a homosexual disorder. If so, then it should be used cautiously.
I believe that a good question for prospective priests is this: Would they make good husbands and fathers? In other words, are they mature Christian men who can be respected by the laity whom they serve. I know that this is a broad statement, but it seems the best overall approach.
I also want men who are honest, forthright and keep their promises. Perhaps (former) Father Kennedy can tell us what signs he himself displayed in the seminary that would have clued in his superiors that he was immature, unable to form healthy relationships, and would eventually fail to keep his promises. In other words, as a man and priest who has violated and victimized the laity, how can he shed some light on these issues so that we can avoid in the future the problems that he has caused the Church. Whether celibate or married, a priest must be able to keep his promises to God and the laity he serves.
Dear young healthy
Dear young healthy priest:
Call us in 20 years.
I'm certain you're on the
I'm certain you're on the "fast track" to the episcopate, as intense homophobia is a requirement to
be a bishop these days!
Dead on! Who then is promise
Dead on!
Who then is promise breaker Kennedy to preach on anything having to do with personal honesty? NCR needs to terminate its association with Kennedy immediately or lose its credibility.....that is if it claims to have any in the first place.
Sir, dude, the National
Sir, dude, the National Catholic Reporter is the only credible active Roman Catholic document left, ok? just saying . . .
except maybe for those posthumous Rev. Fr. Anthony De Mello SJ transcripts they keep on digging up out of the vaults . . .
I mean, who are you going to believe anymore?
The Pope?
gimme a break already
and Eugene Kennedy a breathe of fresh air
like when the Good Pope John xxiii opened that window, remember? . . .
YEah, the one Wojo Wojtyla and Ratzi nailed shut again . . .
i'm just saying, you know?
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Dear healthy young priest
Dear healthy young priest (healthy because you are heterosexual?), you seem a sincere and honest and idealistic person but you also seem lacking in experience and pretty naive. You recognized some seminarians as "flamboyantly gay" and judged them not fit for the priesthood apparently on that criterion alone. You were surprised that others whom you thought heterosexual came out as gay. You obviously haven't had much experience with gays. Most are not "flamboyant." You were happy those who came out as gay chose other than the priesthood. Why? Still another judgment such as Jesus forbade in the Gospel of John? But do you realize that, even under Pope Benedict, celibate gay priests are still being named as bishops, at least two in the last year here in the US? I know because I know them. You need to wake up out of your idealized dreamworld and deal with reality. God is truth, not lies or wishful thinking.
To John and those who asked
To John and those who asked me to respond:
Trust me; I live very much in the "real" world. Pardon my bluntness, but there is nothing natural or normal about a man desiring to have anal intercourse with another man. And all of the mumbo jumbo about "love" doesn't cover up that this "lifestyle" is very sad indeed. Contrary to your opinion, I do know MANY men and women who identify themselves as gays and lesbians. In fact, it is from them that I realize how difficult such a lifestyle is. They are the ones who confirm for me the Church's teachings.
With regard to those who came out to me in the seminary, it is not that they simply told me that they had same sex attractions and had to struggle with them as I have always had to struggle to be chaste heterosexually. They were buying into the gay liberation movement. Had they been able to successful deal with their own issues, I would have welcomed them as brother priests. Thus, I take a somewhat middle ground in everything. I do not believe simply because a man has to deal with same sex attraction issues that he should be barred from the seminary or the priesthood. There are countless extraordinary holy and devote priests who deal with same sex attraction. I came to this conclusion based on personal experience more than abstract theology. I had a spiritual director for seven years who was gay. I can't for a moment believe that the Church would deny his gifts for ministry as a priest. As long as a man is mature, honest, trustworthy and possesses the other gifts that are necessary to live and serve as a priest, then he should be ordained, regardless of his sexual identify.
I have an interesting take on the celibacy question: It should not be optional at all for those to whom God has given the gift of celibacy, any more than man and a woman who God has called to celebrate the Sacrament of Marriage together should opt out of marriage. To use the word "optional" or "law" does not work for me. I do believe that it is far past the time for the Church to listen to the Holy Spirit and welcome married men to be priests. Furthermore, all the priests who have been forced out of active ministry because they felt the call from God to marriage should be welcomed back to active ministry. This process should be done very carefully, though.
As with many inactive priests, Fr. Kennedy is filled with hurt, anger and rage against the church on a number of points. He seems to blame everyone else but himself for his own decisions. He seems to possess a very immature attitude about the priesthood and his own role. He freely received the gift of ordination and made the promise of celibacy. Doesn't he and other inactive priests bear some responsibility for their lives and ministry? I do not sense any humility or sadness on his part for his own responsibility for leaving the active priesthood.
As far as becoming a bishop, I can promise you that that will never happen. I have been a very vocal advocate for the victims of the abuse crisis since I was ordained. I publically called for my previous bishop to resign or be removed. I am not part of the clerical "in crowd"....trust me. LOL In the beginning, the archconservative Catholics tried to claim me as one of the own. I have sadly disappointed them. I believe the church must always strive to pastorally help people who live real lives. Being pastoral does not mean approving those ideas and actions that are contrary to basic Catholic Teaching. It does mean, however, that we are forgiving, sensitive, patient, understanding, truthful and challenging. This is probably the reason that I have been called both liberal and conservative! LOL
I want to surprise many of you by listing a few of the reforms that I want our church to immediately implement. I believe these reforms are reasonable and generally agreed upon by the majority of Catholics as being in accord with basis Catholic teaching:
1. Holy Orders should be open to all men, married or single. Inactive married priests should be welcomed back to active minister. If a priest has chosen the celibate life and later feels the call to marriage there should be a thorough discernment process for him to remain a good priest and become married.
2. The current annulment process should be abolished; it has become a laughing stock and is doing far more harm than good. I love ministering to divorce people, but I HATE doing annulments. It should be a pastoral process, not a legal battle!
3. We should reinstitute the Order of Deaconess and welcome all Catholic women to full inclusion in the Church's governance and ministry without crossing the line into the priesthood. Please remember, I want reforms that everyone can agree upon at this moment in history.
4. I do not know Latin; I am never going to know Latin. I have grown up in the post Vatican II Church and have only celebrated the sacraments in English and Spanish. We need to rename our rite simply the "Roman" Rite. Latin will never become the day-to-day language of the Church again.
5. We should be able to celebrate general confession and absolution at least twice a year (Advent and Lent).
6. Bishops should be elected by the local Church and come from the clergy of the Diocese. There should be a process that the local Church can employ when a bishop (or pastor) is obviously incapable of fulfilling his ministry. Bishops should not be moved from diocese to diocese.
Why am I happy? Jesus loves me and I love him! I love my Catholic brothers and sisters. I love our Church and the ministry of the priesthood. I have lived an extraordinary life because I became a priest. I have seen the very best that God can possible give to our Church and our World. It is the ordinary people in the pews that make being a priest such a great life. May God bless all of you with the same blessings with which he has blessed me!
Post new comment