New U.S. Bishops’ Document on Homosexuality
Today’s issue of USA Today reports on the new document by the U.S. Catholic bishops addressing the question of the pastoral care of homosexuals. (You can find the document here.) In the article, Bishop Arthur Serratelli (Patterson, NJ) says:
Homosexual acts are never morally acceptable.
Such acts never lead to happiness,” he said, because they are
“intrinsically disordered,” meaning they are not directed to the bonds
of marriage and the goal of procreation that are “part of God’s design.
But having an inclination that is disordered does not in any way
diminish human worth.”
“All of us are damaged by original sin, and all of us have desires disordered in various ways,” he said.
I’m assuming that the bishop is not being disingenuous. Of course, the superficial reasonableness of the [UPDATE: last part of the] bishop’s statement is undermined when you remember that Bishop Serratelli’s very necessary (and true) concession that “[a]ll of us are damaged by original sin, and all of us have desires disordered in various ways” does not (according to the hiearchy) prevent some of “us” from being excluded from the Church’s ordained ministry. Apparently, not all disordered desires are created equal, or at least some disordered desires are more equal than others.
What is most interesting (at least to me) about Bishop Serratelli’s comment is that he seems blissfully unaware of any tension between the hiearchy’s words and actions on this score. Sure, the bishops frankly assert in their new document that homosexuality is not like race or gender and, therefore, that it is not “unjust” to treat homosexuals differently in certain respects, e.g., by denying the status of “marriage” to homosexual relationships. But refusing to recognize homosexual marriage is a far cry from discriminating against someone, considered as an individual, just because he falls within the category of persons with “deep seated homosexual tendencies.” What exactly does it mean to say that Christians should not discriminate against homosexuals, as the hierarchy has repeatedly asserted, if they can be denied access to the ministry, notwithstanding their willingness to live a life of celibacy and to tow the Church’s line on homosexual chastity? (I can understand why few gay Catholics would want to submit themselves to these conditions for admission to the priesthood, but I can’t understand how it is just to deny them the opportunity to do so, should they so choose.)
The hierarchy does not really seem eager to grapple with the apparent inconsistency of its statements (repeated again in this newest document) to the effect that everyone — the Church included — must respect the dignity of each individual, even those who have homosexual inclinations (or Bishop Serratelli’s statement that we are all disordered, after all), while at the same time treating homosexuals collectively, and by virtue of their possession of their particular “objective disorder,” as damaged goods not worthy of ordination. But the hierarchy’s failure to confront this issue head-on does us all a disservice, especially those of us who dissent from the Church’s entire approach to homosexuality. If there is some knock-down case for why these two positions are not, in the end, inconsistent with one another, wouldn’t we all be better off knowing what that is?
UPDATE: I modified the post above to make clear that I did not at all think that Bishop Serratelli’s off-hand comment that homosexuality never leads to happiness is at all reasonable. That appears to be an empirical assertion that is, at least in my own personal experience, almost certainly false. I know many perfectly happy homosexual men and women. to the extent that they have trouble being happy, it’s because of people (like some Bishops) who go out of their way to make it more difficult for gay people to have access to the resources, legal and otherwise, helpful for living normal and fulfilling lives. The idea that homosexual people would be MORE happy if they simply repressed their sexual orientation and lived celibate or, worse (for them), heterosexual lives strikes me as laughable.
UPDATE II: I am aware that the word “happiness” has a variety of meanings, particularly in the theological context. One comment below believes that Bishop Serratelli intended to use happiness in a strictly theological sense that is “something different than what Prof. Penalver, and most modern Western society does.” That is certainly possible, but it hardly seems like the only way to read his comments. After all, he is talking to USA Today. Why use a word in that context in a way different from the way “most of modern Western society” understands it? If his meaning were purely theological, there are a number of other technical terms he could have used to make his point (e.g., “flourishing”), terms that are often preferred in academic discussions to avoid precisely the ambiguity to which the comments are pointing. I’m happy to stipulate that if Bishop Serratelli meant the word “happiness” to mean something more like “flourishing,” then his comment is merely a restatement of the Church’s position that gay sex can never be virtuous. I would disagree with that too, but the point of disagreement would be a different one.
on November 15th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Perhaps Bishop Serratelli is making a distinction between desires and acts that are per se disordered, or “unnatural” and desires and acts that are of themselves “natural” but are sinful, let us say, outside marriage, when they are accidentally disordered.
on November 15th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
I’m sure that’s right as to the hierarchy’s position on homosexuality, and something like this is probably lying behind Serratelli’s comments, but the question still remains (1) whether/how this difference justifies discriminating against homosexuals interested in the priesthood and (2), if so, what it means for the hierarchy to continue to insist on respect for the individual dignity of homosexual persons. Doesn’t their categorical exlusion from ordination reduce them to mere members of a group in a way that fails to treat them as unique individuals?
on November 15th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
I agree that Bishop Serratelli’s statement is muddled and I also agree that your questions are still valid. I have heard something to the effect that the Bishop/presbyter must play the role of Christ as spouse to the faithful to whom he ministers. Apparently, some may think, this means not only that those who hold those offices must be men but also men who love women. That strikes me as muddled. It is rather like saying that a pastoral role requires literally the dispositions of a good working shepherd.
on November 15th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Mr. Penalver,
Didn’t the Instruction say that homosexuals could gain admission to the seminary if they had been celibate for three years and abstained from the “gay” lifestyle, etc.? How is this discriminating against them? It wasn’t as though there was a blanket ban against homosexuals in the seminary.
on November 15th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Does the instruction make the same requirement of three years of celibacy prior to admission for hetereosexuals?
I’m asking because I honestly don’t know.
If they don’t apply the same requirement to both heterosexuals as homosexuals, then yes, it is discriminatory. It infers that homosexuals as a group can be judged as needing a special requirement whereas heterosexuals can be safely assessed as individuals. There’s no rational evidence to support that line of thinking.
on November 15th, 2006 at 12:56 pm
That part of the instruction, at least as I read it, only applies to people who have “homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded.” The exclusion of those with so-called “deep seated” homosexual tendencies appears to be absolute.
on November 15th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
I believe the Instruction was issued to combat what was perceived at the Vatican as the homosexualization of the priesthood and, in part at least, the episcopacy. The theology of the priesthood involves the notion of fatherhood and the proper relationship to men and to women and homosexuals have a problem with both of those concepts.
on November 15th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
“The theology of the priesthood involves the notion of fatherhood and the proper relationship to men and to women and homosexuals have a problem with both of those concepts.”
The man who never married, is not in a sexual relationship with a woman, and has no children has a better notion of fatherhood and the proper relationship to men and to women over the man who never married, is not in a sexual relationship with a woman, and has no children?
Because one is sexually attracted to women and the other is attracted to men?
Where is the evidence of that?
on November 15th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
Eduardo,
It was a prudential decision and one with more room for application than you are leading on. We have too many homosexuals in the priesthood, many of whom do not believe and profess the Church’s teachings on the nature of human sexuality. It creates a scandle and weakens the ability of the Church to profess other sacred truths with which she has been entrusted by Christ and his apostles.
on November 15th, 2006 at 2:31 pm
Donna,
If you read the Instruction itself, you will see the following: “The candidate for ordained ministry, therefore, must attain affective maturity. Such maturity will allow him to relate properly with men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood for the ecclesial community that will be entrusted to him.” The Instruction had already cited Pastores dabo vobis.
By the way, the decision to be ordained is not only up to the one seeking ordination. The Church has the ultimate decision and it is at her discretion that anyone is ordained. Homosexuals act like they have a right to be ordained. Ordination is a privilege, not a right. And the Church has to do her due diligence to ensure that those she ordains meet at least minimal standards.
on November 15th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
“If you read the Instruction itself, you will see the following: “The candidate for ordained ministry, therefore, must attain affective maturity. Such maturity will allow him to relate properly with men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood for the ecclesial community that will be entrusted to him.” The Instruction had already cited Pastores dabo vobis. ”
And there is absolutely no evidence that shows homosexuality prevents anyone from achieving the appropriate level of maturity.
The instruction to discern the candidate’s level of maturity and ability to properly relate to both men and women and to develop a sense of spiritual fatherhood is entirely appropriate. And, of course the Church has the right to practice due diligence, but tying a person’s ability to achieve that level of maturity to their sexual orientation has no basis in reality.
on November 15th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Donna,
With all due respect, male homosexuals relate very differently to woman than do heterosexual men. And if you read Msgr. Anatrella’s psychiatric study on homosexuals in the priesthood, he does indicate that they do not achieve the requisite levels of maturity. And sexual orientation does matter when putting someone in an all-male environment when one is sexually attracted to males. It involves no sacrifice whatsoever. It also involves great temptation. And there is no possibility of seeing oneself as a father because one cannot transcend one’s own narcissism.
on November 15th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
There seems to be enough twisting around on the bit about homosexual priest candidates to give rise to serious suspicion. Certainly, this document, not to mention the whole Church approach to homosexuals, is seriously conflicted.
For example, Janice’s objection to Donna:
“(S)exual orientation does matter when putting someone in an all-male environment when one is sexually attracted to males. It involves no sacrifice whatsoever. It also involves great temptation. And there is no possibility of seeing oneself as a father because one cannot transcend one’s own narcissism.”
Maybe the all-male environment is the problem. Jesus did not institute the seminary system, and perhaps it would be better for the Church to junk it and do something better.
There is no sacrifice in all-male seminaries for misogynists, either. And homosexuals do not have the market cornered on narcissism. Is narcissism a deal-breaker for seminarians and clergy? If so, we’re in a heap o’ trouble, numbers’wise.
on November 15th, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Todd,
Well, yes, narcissism is not the province only of homosexuals. And Jesus did not invent seminaries. But what is your suggestion for a better solution, given a celibate clergy? The current problem with seminaries is that it offers a cover for homosexuals who are getting exactly what they want: an all-male environment, an occupation that promises them status and respectability, while allowing them unfettered access to male and only male companionship, and, until recently, no questions asked.
on November 15th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Sorry, Janice.
It’s going to take a lot more than one Msgr.’s psych analysis to prove that homosexuals as a group do not achieve the requisite levels of maturity. Methinks he may have a somewhat vested interest in the outcome of the study.
And as much as I appreciate your opinion, you have a marked tendency to convey it as fact. Other than your own personal opinion, where is the evidence that homosexual men are any more narcisstic than heterosexual men? Lord knows, I haven’t noticed any difference between the two.
on November 15th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
I’m not sure how Msgr. Antarella entered this debate -isn’t he accused of abusing an ex-seminarian?
We tend to listen to those who agree with our preconceived notions about questions of great complexity.
I find it hard to take seriously that homosexuality is the problem of the priesthood today. Issues about not only celibacy but particularly the role of priest are critical. The challenge of service has been deflated, it strikes me, as priests quickly become pastors/mamgers and devotional leaders.
Well, if we reach a simpler “purer” Church, maybe we won’t need as many priests after all….
on November 15th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Donna,
At what point (and excuse me for conveying my “opinion” as fact) do you accept Church teaching on homosexuality? That’s all I was saying. Homosexuality is incomplete: it’s like looking at yourself in a mirror. Where’s the complementarity?
on November 15th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
Janice, where’s the complemenatarity in celibacy? It’s nice to think that priests would, in a parallel existence, all be wise husbands and fathers — but I don’t think that men who pursue the priesthood are equivalent to men who don’t. I don’t mean that negatively in any way, but to turn off one’s sexuality, I believe, is the result of an incredibly strong impulse — one that (again, IMHO) could usually be possible in someone who could not sincerely be interested in conventional family life. I actually think that is quite consistent with Jesus’s teachings for his apostles (leaving one’s earthly family behind), but other than on perceived pragmatic grounds, I don’t see why that should exclude homosexuals.
on November 15th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Janice,
You say: “The theology of the priesthood involves the notion of fatherhood and the proper relationship to men and to women and homosexuals have a problem with both of those concepts.”
The habit of calling secular priests father is rather recent, certainly post-Tridentine in some places. It seems to have a rather weak theological basis. I had thought that through Christ we all became his adopted brothers and sisters and so children of the Father. How does the fatherhood of the local parochial vicar fit in with that?
As for the supposed inherent inability of homosexuals to relate properly to men and women, since current policy does not really bar homosexuals who have never been active, or who have not been active in the last three years before admission to a seminary, it seems that it does recognize that homosexuals can perform the duties of a parochial vicar or even a pastor or bishop satisfactorily. Thre seems to be an inconsistency here.
on November 15th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Barbara,
The complementarity in celibacy is the Church. It’s a symbolic marriage, if you will and that’s why the Church has always been characterized as feminine (ecclesia). It’s not just a functional position or managerial or service. Even if we reach a simpler, “purer” Church, as Mr. Nunz suggests, we will still need priests. After all, they act in persona Christi. And the Church is the bride of Christ.
on November 15th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Here are some passages from the Catechism on homosexuality:
“Basing itself on sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2357).
“Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection” (CCC 2357– 2359).
“At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.
A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.
In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.
In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.”
on November 15th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Janice, Celibacy is truly celibacy, even for heterosexual priests, and the “marriage” between a priest and the church is symbolic such that the church does not completely “fill in” for a real human spouse. Like a lot of symbols, it can’t be analogized all that closely with the real thing, and, if anything, placing some sort of female eros overlay on a priest’s relationship with the church does not strike me as realistic or healthy. It understates the degree to which celibacy really is a sacrifice, for one thing, and the degree to which priests can be worn down by lack of intimate human relationships.
on November 15th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
“Maybe the all-male environment is the problem. Jesus did not institute the seminary system, and perhaps it would be better for the Church to junk it and do something better.”
Indubitably right Todd. Seminaries just foster an elite and haughty breed. And people can be appointed to celebrate the life, death and resurrection of Jesus in this hopeful, loving banquet.
As for homosexuality, neither we nor the church seem to know what we are talking about with reference to it.
We need real Christian communities where we would really know each other and bishops, who should be pastors should stay for life
on November 15th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
With all due respect Prof. Peñalver, the only reason you see a contradiction is because you disagree with the Church’s underlying position on homosexuality. If homosexual behavior is a sinful, and homosexual orientation is disordered (a position held almost universally until it was changed by the same generation that gave us no-fault divorce, free love, and the New Coke) There is no contradiction. So I don’t see how or even why the bishops would explain it.
Finally, Janice is absolutely right on this. It is only if you view the priesthood as a job that equal opportunity rules apply to, and the purpose of celibacy as some sort of self-control feat, and ignore the deeper meaning of the relationship of the priesthood to the Church and as an icon of Christ that a priests sexual orientation becomes irrelevant.
on November 15th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
Yeah, I have a Catechism too and without selective editing or added quotations from an unnamed source. Here’s the part that got left out:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
I repeat:
“Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. ”
This would be the part of Church teaching that I’d like to see people pay more attention to.
And once more - “to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.”
The way I read this whole section it is the homosexual act that is disordered. Remove the homosexual act, and what are you left with? Are you left with someone who is intrinsically disordered and unfit for the priesthood? Or, are you left with a person who is willing to “unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross”?
And all this hooey about the seminary being a problem because the temptation is too great - a guaranteed hotbed of homosexuality all those men living together!
If that’s the case, then let’s shut down the convents because you know it’s not just the men who can be homosexuals! Put the locks on the single sex dormitories because no healthy college age male or female can be trusted to live a chaste life when you throw them all together under one roof!
Must be why they let women into the military. What better way to deter homosexual men from trying to join the club than to throw some women into the mix!
Those homosexuals - they can’t make a life commitment to anything other than sex, sex, sex. Can’t serve their country, can’t serve God, all they can do is troll around looking for herds of men to infiltrate.
Homosexuals are told they can’t marry. They’re told to be chaste and celibate. They’re told to practice self-mastery, to rely on “disinterested friendships”, pray and strive for Christian perfection.
Now if they can’t find that in religious life, then where else would you like them to look?
We don’t seem to have any problem telling homosexuals exactly what cross they are meant to bear, but we have precious little to say about how to bring God’s commandment to “love one another as I have loved you” into reality.
on November 15th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
Barbara,
It’s not “just symbolism.” That’s a modern construct. Please remember that symbolism in the Church leads to the real; it’s not just a convenience or something that can be discarded or an abstraction (as in nominalism). It refers to something that actually exists, that has content. So, the Church as the bride of Christ is more real than the “real” thing here on earth. In fact, earthly “reality” is a shadow of the invisible reality to which we aspire. So you’ve got it exactly backward. And it’s not laying a feminine eros over the priest’s relationship with the Church: it’s traditional orthodox Catholic theology. You’re “reading” the priesthood as though it were any other job.
Mr. Mazzella: seminaries don’t breed an elite. They are a place in which to try to conform oneself to Christ.
And the Mass is not simply a “hopeful, loving banquet.” That’s the truncated version of the theology of the Mass, which has been bequeathed by some post-Vatican II exegetes. The Mass is both a banquet and a sacrifice. Eucharistic theology goes back to the Jewish Passover. The Passover is not just a ritual that recalls a specific time in the past, i.e., a memorial, but is also one that makes the living God present. So the meal at which Jesus presided was not just another meal or banquet, but one in which Jesus substitutes his body and blood for the bread and wine of the Passover seder. And Jesus changes the ritual from the presence of the God of Exodus to his ongoing presence through the resurrection.
But the Mass is also the ever-present sacrifice of Jesus Christ on our altars who commands us to offer ourselves as well. Each Mass actualizes Christ’s redeeming sacrifice. So the Mass has to be more than just a meal or banquet, because there is a death connected with it and the death of Christ becomes present to us during the Mass. Calling it just a meal makes it just another ancient mystery cult.
on November 15th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Donna,
No one says that homosexuals should be discriminated against, but that doesn’t mean male homosexuals should be priests. There are all kinds of positions or jobs or occupations that certain people or groups cannot occupy. Male homosexuals are not fit to be priests in most cases. They cannot fulfill the requirements of chastity and of relating properly to men and women. It does not mean that there are not other functions in the Church that they cannot fulfill.
on November 15th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
Donna,
And here’s the situation: the Pope is not going to ordain homosexuals. It doesn’t really matter what you or I think about it.
And one other thing: people who self-identify as “gay” or homosexual are not focused on Christ. And that’s the biggest reason why they shouldn’t be ordained. If you aren’t focused on Christ, but on your sexual identification, then you have a problem that cannot be surmounted. Because a priest should be focused on Christ and only on Christ.
on November 15th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
“But what is your suggestion for a better solution, given a celibate clergy?”
A good graduate school in which seminarians study, live and work with other lay students.
Janice, I think one problem with your line of thinking is that all of your negatives have the potential to backfire against any priest who is not sufficiently mature.
“If you aren’t focused on Christ, but on your sexual identification, then you have a problem that cannot be surmounted. ”
Just substitute “sexual identification” for traditionalism, the Latin Mass, addiction to power, and we could toss out any number of priest candidates.
Gay men have served chastely, honorably, and with great sanctity as priests. I see no reason for them not to continue to do so. Rather than focus inordinately on homosexuality, let’s instead look at the simple question of maturity. Ordain no one younger than 40. Insist they live and work in the world among the lay people they will one day serve. If they want an all-male environment and holiness, get into religious life, where the community is ready and able to support the willing postulants on the start toward a holy and dedicated life.
I suspect this attention on homosexuals is little more than a smokescreen for the real problem: bishops who lack the charism of true and loving service to their people. If we had bishops with their eyes focused on the laity and their brother clergy instead of what Rome thinks or where their red hat patron can send them, we’d be a far sight better off.
By not consulting with gay Catholics, even those who belong to the more conservative organizations, these bishops have produced a document that lacks legs to do much of anything. These prelates need a solid course in Christus Dominus. Can somebody please give it to them?
on November 15th, 2006 at 10:14 pm
Janice, I will give you this much. At least you are trying to explain yourself—rather than magisterium 24/7. At the same time you make assertions with no back up at all. So much so that one can easily say: “Quod gratis asseritor, gratis negatur.”
You certainly are Counter Reformation. It would be nice to see some reasoning from you now and then.
As far as
on November 15th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
“I suspect this attention on homosexuals is little more than a smokescreen for the real problem: bishops who lack the charism of true and loving service to their people. If we had bishops with their eyes focused on the laity and their brother clergy instead of what Rome thinks or where their red hat patron can send them, we’d be a far sight better off.”
And it should be noted that this was true of Athanasius, Augustine and many of the other fathers.
When are we going to get the lesson that the Levite and the Priest failed Jesus’ test in the Samaritan story. That is like making the story, the Story of the Good Muslim. It is not orthodoxy Janice. It is goodness that counts. God save us from these aristocrats!
on November 15th, 2006 at 11:22 pm
Well, that’s the funniest thing about it, Janice!
Homosexuals have already been ordained as priests! The Church has been ordaining homosexuals for decades - centuries, even.
They’ve been promoted to higher positions in the Church, and as was already pointed out, many have served chastely and with holiness.
If we were to clear the Church of all the homosexuals who have already been ordained, you would see a significant drop in the numbers of eligible clergy.
on November 16th, 2006 at 3:02 am
Janice: I would like you to explain that how all of the homosexual priests throughout the centuries have not been able to “focus on Christ” because of who they are. The ideas that because one is a gay man, one cannot focus on Christ, nor relate properly to both men and women are the worst form of poppycock. And they are particularly onerous when they come from the mouths of churchmen … and I mean church”men”.
Demonstrable and veriable proofs of such mean-spirited statements are simply not available. And don’t quote one priest’s self-serving “study” as proof! The world is full of experts who can and will shoot such idiocies full of holes so fast it will make your head swim.
on November 16th, 2006 at 8:27 am
One frustrating aspect of this conversation is that we don’t even agree on terms. For example, Prof. Penalver’s update that Bishop Serratelli’s “off-hand” comment about homosexual’s and happiness is a case in point. I’m sure the comment isn’t off-hand and I’m sure he meant it, because he understands hapiness as something different than what Prof. Penalver, and most modern Western society does.
If happiness simply means contentedness, or a subjective feeling of satisfaction, then the good professor is right. But is that what Christian happiness means? Christ didn’t say, happy are the financially secure for they shall see a condo in Palm Beach. He didn’t even say, happy are the parent’s whose children are healthy. Happiness must be an objective state of being, not a subjective state of mind.
The same is true of Christian love. Modern society always reduces love to mean kindness, or even, inoffensiveness. Christ came to redeem - that’s love. When he went into the homes of sinners it wasn’t so they could just feel good about themselves, it was to call them to redemption in love.
One of my favorite passages from C.S. Lewis is where he says that most modern people don’t want a Father in Heaven, they want a Grandfather in Heaven. A kind old man who at the end of the day says, “A good time was had by all.”
on November 16th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Dear Eduardo,
Please see the Summa, I.II.3.
“In what does happiness consist?”
on November 16th, 2006 at 9:22 am
JimmyMac,
I don’t have to account for all the homosexuals priests in history. I don’t know whether they focused on Christ and neither do you.
The current “gay” lobby, of which many Catholic homosexual priests are a part, focus solely on their sexual orientation. This precludes any total focus on Christ. It’s not mean-spirited to question whether male homosexuals, many of whom make a profession of avoiding women at all costs, can relate properly to them in the ministry.
on November 16th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Mr. Mazzella,
Do you agree with anything the Magisterium says? The alternative is a free church. I really think it’s really unfair to stay in the Church if you disagree with every single thing and try to change it from the inside. If you disagree as completely as you seem to, why do you stay?
on November 16th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Janice:
All this talk about a priest being “married” to the church strikes me as little more than a poetic conceit that some in the church have taken farther than may be prudent. But it’s a relatively new concept for me, and I’m open to the possibility of being wrong. So here go a few questions:
1) Since all Christians are baptized into Christ, aren’t we all called into a kind of love-relationship with the church? Shouldn’t we all be taking the church as our “spouse,” as the one entity we love above all others? Or is the priest supposed to have a more intense love for the church–something lay people are not capable of achieving because they are divided in their affections (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:32-35)? Does that mean, also, that I’m not expected to show complete loyalty to the church–at least not as complete a loyalty and love as celibate priests have?
2) What does this say about those priests who are married–both those in communion with Rome and those who are Orthodox? As far as I know, the Vatican does consider these men as valid priests, just from a different tradition with different disciplines. Are these priests compromised in their exclusive love for the church? Are they therefore deficient in the exercise of their ministry? Are the Masses they celebrate somehow less valid?
3) As far as I can tell (and I may be wrong), all of the contributors to this thread are lay people. Some are even women, whose very gender disqualifies them from this exclusive love for the church. Let’s hear from some of the ordained out there who are undoubtedly reading along. What do you think, Fathers, especially about this notion of being wedded to the church? What’s your experience?
on November 16th, 2006 at 9:47 am
“It’s not mean-spirited to question whether male homosexuals, many of whom make a profession of avoiding women at all costs, can relate properly to them in the ministry.”
Honestly, where DO you get this stuff?!
on November 16th, 2006 at 9:49 am
“It’s not mean-spirited to question whether male homosexuals, many of whom make a profession of avoiding women at all costs, can relate properly to them in the ministry.”
Honestly, where DO you get this stuff?!
What is mean-spirited is to keep making these pronouncements about what male homosexuals are spiritually and emotionally capable of without having any evidence to support it other than your own biased opinion.
on November 16th, 2006 at 9:58 am
Mark,
Yes, there is a sense in which there is a priesthood of all believers (”the common priesthood of the faithful, cf. CCC #1120, 1547, 1551), but not in the sense of the Protestant churches. The common priesthood of believers is conferred on us by baptism. The sacerdotal priesthood is a special ministry, open only to men. The ministerial priesthood is at the service of the baptized and is transmitted by its own sacrament, Holy Orders. As the Catechism states: “The ordained priesthood guarantees that it really is Christ who acts in the sacraments through the Holy Spirit for the Church. (CCC #1120).”
The ministerial priesthood, transmitted by Holy Orders, goes back to Jesus and the Apostles. Again, as the Catechism says: “The saving mission entrusted by the Father to his incarnate Son was committed to the apostles and through them to their successors: they receive the Spirit of Jesus to act in his name and in his person. The ordained minister is the sacramental bond that ties the liturgical action to what the apostles said and did and, through them, to the words and actions of Christ, the source and foundation of the sacraments (CCC #1120).”
There are three functions of the ministerial priesthood that do not devolve to the priesthood of all believers:
“The ministerial priesthood differs in essence from the common priesthood of the faithful because it confers a sacred power for the service of the faithful. The ordained ministers exercise their service for the People of God by teaching (munus docendi), divine worship (munus liturgicum) and pastoral governance (munus regendi). (CCC #1592).”
Moreover, as CCC #1552 states: “The ministerial priesthood has the task not only of representing Christ - Head of the Church - before the assembly of the faithful, but also of acting in the name of the whole Church when presenting to God the prayer of the Church, and above all when offering the Eucharistic sacrifice.”
As to married priests, there are exceptions for those Anglican and Lutheran ministers who convert to Roman Catholicism and are married. In Orthodoxy, priests may be married, but those who wish to become bishops must be celibate. Their services are valid as is there commitment, but they operate under a different discipline than the Latin Church. This discipline constitutes part of the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, just as the tradition of married priests and celibate bishops constitutes part of the Tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy.
on November 16th, 2006 at 10:08 am
This item from yesterday’s New York Sun is only indirectly relevant to this post but nevertheless intriguing. It seems that a number of Manhattan schools now decline to use the terms “Mother” and “Father” in an effort to make gay couples feel more accepted.
“An institution that asks for the contact information of “Parent 1″ and “Parent 2″ — rather than for “Mother” and “Father” — may be a more welcoming environment for children of homosexuals, bisexuals, and transgender parents, she said. At Little Red School House & Elisabeth Irwin High School, for example, the application takes the “Parent 1″ and “Parent 2″ approach, and does not ask guardians to specify their gender.”
http://www.nysun.com/article/43538
It’s becoming very difficult for those with the best intentions to adapt. Formerly acceptable usage is now deemed to be unwelcoming or offensive. At times we are told to acknowledge differences, at other times to ignore them, but the standards are rapidly changing and not always in predictable ways. If the “Parent 1″ and “Parent 2″ approach wins acceptance we will have moved far beyond the stale discussions of sexual identity. Perhaps we should anticipate revisions of the “Our Father.” I know we’ve already had some but they may not be fully up to date.
on November 16th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Donna,
Read the Vatican Instruction. I guess it’s mean-spirited, too.
on November 16th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Janice,
Point to where in the Vatican instruction there is any sign or comment that indicates that , like you, we should “question whether male homosexuals, many of whom make a profession of avoiding women at all costs, can relate properly to them in the ministry.”
I couldn’t find anything in the Vatican instruction linked through this article that puts limits on a homosexual person’s ability to develop a substantial spiritual maturity that leads them towards Christian perfection.
If you can find it in there, I’d be happy to take a look at it.
on November 16th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Isn’t it the very essence of “unjust discrimination” to make generalizations (be they false, half true, or even largely true) about a group and ascribe them to each and every individual who happens to be a member of that group? It is not as if candidates for ordination undergo so little scrutiny that they can’t be judged on their individual merits. And in any case, as a practical matter, wouldn’t all the alleged attitude problems and personality defects imputed to homosexuals be much more apparent than their sexual orientation? Is it really necessary to know if a man is gay or straight to figure out if he is narcissistic or has problems with authority?
on November 16th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Let me cut to the chase:
Just say “NO” to the official line of institutional church “leaders” (hah, hah!) regarding homosexuality ad nauseum.
I’m guessing the bishops are issuing still another statement because more and more Catholics believe current official teaching is pure bull. (And to think we laity are “footing the bill” for these guys in their modified granny dresses to visit Baltimore and promulgate still more useless statements on various and sundry topics.)
O, well, what else is new?
on November 16th, 2006 at 11:37 am
Janice, I will grant that priests who self-identify to the extreme about being homosexual probably lack the necessary maturity to serve fruitfully in the ministry.
I could understand a late self-realization leading to a relatively brief period of self-identification. But overall, I would hope that every ordained priest has the psychological make-up not to dwell on himself as “gay” or “orthodox” or “liberal” or “overworked” or “misunderstood” or “persecuted” or any such label, explicit or otherwise. That’s not what priests are ordained for.
Ordination is not election to an office on behalf of a constituency.
I would say that the Catholic presbyterate universally is in dire need of a serious self-examination and discernment. Poking at peripheral distractions like the sexual orientation of celibates avoids the real issues and challenges facing parish priests. If bishops were truly listening to their brothers, we would not have mutinies in New York or Belleville or other places.
And who knows: if bishops could get their act together with their clergy, maybe they wouldn’t be swimming upstream so much on pastoral issues like ministry to Catholic homosexuals.
on November 16th, 2006 at 11:41 am
OK Donna,
CONGREGATION FOR CATHOLIC EDUCATION
CONCERNING THE CRITERIA OF VOCATIONAL DISCERNMENT REGARDING PERSONS WITH HOMOSEXUAL TENDENCIES IN VIEW OF THEIR ADMISSION TO SEMINARIES AND HOLY ORDERS - November 04, 2005
1. Affective maturity and spiritual fatherhood (paternity)
According to the constant Tradition of the Church, only baptised males validly receive sacred Ordination. Through the sacrament of Orders the Holy Spirit configures the candidate, with a new and specific designation, to Jesus Christ: the priest, in fact, sacramentally represents Christ, Head, Shepherd, and Spouse of the Church. Because of this configuration to Christ, the entire life of the sacred minister must be animated by the gift of his entire person to the Church and by authentic pastoral charity.
The candidate for ordained ministry, therefore, must attain affective maturity. Such maturity will allow him to relate properly with men and women, developing in him a true sense of spiritual fatherhood for the ecclesial community that will be entrusted to him.
on November 16th, 2006 at 11:41 am
>>Just say “NO” to the official line of institutional church “leaders” (hah, hah!) regarding homosexuality ad nauseum.<<
I’m afraid this is all Eduardo’s post has managed–a mere registering of his dissent without argument. He is theologically and philosophically innocent. More evidence of this was seen in his attempt to argue for a conventional pro-choice position, which was memorably eviscerated by Robby George.
on November 16th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
This thread, supposedly about the US Bishop’s statement , has morphed into discussion of the vatican instruction, the theology of priesthood and the place of gays in the Church.
It should be noted that a motion was made at the Bishop’s conference to table the document as not yet ripe and in need of dialogue with those affected - the motion failed and the documen twas carried by a wide margin.
As to Orders and men, if we had female deacons and they are being considered again, what does that say about malenesds and the sacrament?
It strikes me that rather the father analogy being the main construct of priestly theology, Paul in Hebrews notes that the Christlike is bent on fully emptying themselvs. Though shot through with sin, the priest is still able to deal compassionately with those he represents, and tries to emulated the Great Priest who took on humanity but lived spotlessly.
Much here states the question of homosexuality and priests today is that there’s too much gayness around now in the clergy (granted it’s been that way throughout history) . What’s the empirical evidence of this -seems to me to be more an asssertion in this thread.
Finally, gettiing back to the title of the thread, how effective will our Bishop’s statement be in the gay community and in the Church at large in this country? It strikes me that that is the real question.
on November 16th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Posted by Janice
on November 16, 2006, 9:29 am
Mr. Mazzella,
Do you agree with anything the Magisterium says? The alternative is a free church. I really think it’s really unfair to stay in the Church if you disagree with every single thing and try to change it from the inside. If you disagree as completely as you seem to, why do you stay?
Janice,
The pharisees and Scribes said the same to Jesus who pointed out that the hated Samaritan did the will of God better than the priests and Levite did. Your doctrinal church would have crucified Christ also.
on November 16th, 2006 at 12:30 pm
Mr. Mazzella,
You didn’t answer my question. The Church is what it is and it’s not going to change. So why do you stay?
on November 16th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
A) I said can you find it in the instruction linked from this article. That would be the instruction on the pastoral care of homosexual persons, which does not contain any statement that would indicate homosexuals are incapable of achieving spiritual maturity.
B) The excerpt you did link to also does not specifically state that homosexuals are incapable of achieving the necessary spiritual maturity or ability to relate to all persons as required by the priesthood.
In fact, the pastoral care statement takes great pains to point out that disordered inclinations are not limited to homosexuals and gives examples of other disordered inclinations that have nothing to do with homosexuality.
So why would there be any need for the Church to distinguish between homosexuals and heterosexuals for the priesthood?
1) Is there a disordered inclination present?
2) Has the candidate demonstrated he is able to overcome this disordered inclination and achieve the necessary spiritual maturity?
on November 16th, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Donna, read the Instruction on Homosexual in the Seminary. That’s the crucial statement on homosexual in seminaries, not on homosexuals in general. And the Vatican does make a distinction between heterosexuals and homosexuals, whether you like it or not. The cover letter also said that homosexuals may not be rectors of seminaries nor may they supervise the formation of priests.
on November 16th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
” …. male homosexuals, many of whom make a profession of avoiding women at all costs …”
Janice, I cannot let this slur go by without challenging it. On what do you base this statement? How many male homosexuals do you you know well enough to give credence to that claim?
Secondly, you are the one who made the statement that those who self-identify as “gay” or homosexual (and the difference being ?) cannot focus on Christ.
To accept your identity as gay/lesbian is not the same as focusing on it inordinately. Most of us wouldn’t give it a second thought EXCEPT for the fact that folks like you keep telling us that we are not worthy to be at the table.
Again, prove your claim or keep your prejudices to yourself.
I undoubtedly know infinitely more “male homosexuals” than you ever thought of meeting and I know of NO ONE who makes it a “profession of avoiding women at all costs!” No one … and I live in the SF Bay Area where there are as many different homosexual as there are cars on the streets.
Some of your statements border on being ad hominem and must be challenged.
Provide the proof or stop making these kinds of remarks. I doubt you’ll be able to do the former or be willing to do the latter, but I, for one, will not let your remarks go unchallenged.
on November 16th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Janice,
I guess if it is not in the Catechism you find it difficult.
I stay mindful of the words of Jesus and am wary of the leaven of the Scribes and Pharisses.
The reality is the bishops act like the Scribes and Pharisees. You cannot and may not follow the catechism of the Scribes and Pharisees.
on November 16th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Bill,
Would you prefer to swap the words of Jesus? Perhaps Mark 10:6-9 would be a good place to start.
Jesus criticized the pharisees beacuse they put the laws of men in place of the law of God.
Jimmy,
At any point in those 34 years, did you sincerely endeavor through prayer, fasting and the sacraments to live chastely?
on November 16th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
There shouldn’t be any difference between the Catechism’s statements on homosexuality, the instructions on pastoral care of homosexuals, and the instructions for the seminary.
The Catechism and the pastoral care instructions both very plainly state that it is the homosexual act that is sinful and while the inclination is disordered, neither claims this renders a homosexual person less worthy of achieving Christian perfection or intrinsically unworthy of pursuing religious life.
If the instructions for the seminary contradict these two statements and bar homosexuals from the priesthood by claiming the inclination by its nature renders the person unsuitable for religious life, then the teaching is inconsistent at best.
on November 16th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Donna,
You are right. There is an inconsistency.
Janice,
I note that you declined to answer the questions I raised earlier. I assume this means you concede that you cannot.
on November 16th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
To mlj,
My comments were brief because they deal with a subject (official teaching) that isn’t worth the attention it draws in the media.
For more in-depth reasoning, please see above comments from others who (thank God for you, I guess) have the patience to show the inherent weaknesses of the “official line” once it is scrutinized.
It would appear our bishops saw the need to reiterate official policy because they rightly perceived a growing lack of its acceptance by educated and informed laity who have knocked holes in it for reasons such as outlined by earlier critics.
Really, when one thinks of it, the bishops and their friends in Rome are their own worst enemies when repeating the same old crap that emanates from the bowels of the Vatican.
on November 16th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Joe,
crap . . . . bowels . . . very nice . . . very astute observation . . . very well reasoned.
Perhaps the bishops perceive the need to reiterate the Church’s “official policy” because it is under attack and since “educated and informed layity” don’t seem terribly informed or educated about the Church’s “official policy.”
In polls taken by the august National Catholic Reporter, nearly half the “educated and informed layity” agreed that the Eucharist is only symbolic. Maybe we ought to rethink that one too. What about the Sacrament of Reconcilliation? That one doesn’t garner much support either. Maybe a focus group to work out the best “policy.” Tell you what, lets not even bother voting or polling, who is the Church to tell me what to think anyway? I’m “educated and informed.” I can figure it out for myself.
on November 16th, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Sean H - “In polls taken by the august National Catholic Reporter, nearly half the ‘educated and informed layity’ (sic) agreed that the Eucharist is only symbolic.”
I haven’t seen the poll. I would suspect that without a definition of “symbol” subscribed to by all participants it would be impossible to make sense of it. If everyone agreed that a symbol actually mediated the reality would you have the same problem that your post implies?
on November 17th, 2006 at 2:05 am
mlj:
Live chastely? If, by that, do you mean did we see the need to suspend the unitive part of our relationship? No, and we didn’t feel any need to. We didn’t then, nor do we now, agree with the position of “the church” with respect to a need to be celibate because one of us is not of the opposite gender.
on November 17th, 2006 at 4:39 am
Janice,
Mark asked something specific “Are these (married) priests compromised in their exclusive love for the church? Are they therefore deficient in the exercise of their ministry? Are the Masses they celebrate somehow less valid?”
You wrote “In Orthodoxy, priests may be married, but those who wish to become bishops must be celibate. Their services are valid as is there commitment, but they operate under a different discipline than the Latin Church. This discipline constitutes part of the Tradition of the Roman Catholic Church, just as the tradition of married priests and celibate bishops constitutes part of the Tradition of Eastern Orthodoxy.”
But what is your answer to Mark? Because my wife is originally from an Orthodox church and we have many relatives who are Orthodox, I happen to attend Orthodox Masses and services quite often (Weddings, baptisms, funerals…) So I am really interested in your answer.
on November 17th, 2006 at 6:30 am
The most recent poll - taken in 2005 - indicated that nearly 40% of Catholics believe you can be a “good Catholic” and not believe in the Real Presence. They got similar answers in 1999. More than three quarters of American Catholics think they have no obligation to attend Mass on Sundays, according to the same poll.
I have read other polls specifically asking, “Is the Eucharist really Christ or only a symbol?” and they get similary responses. When I say symbol, I mean symbol - nothing less and certainly nothing more.
My point is that I am sick of hearing about how we ought to get with the times, and change Church teachings because of the wisdom of the faithful. Heck, in the same poll, more than a quarter said it wasn’t necessary to believe in the resurrection to be Catholic!
When we start ignoring the Magesterium and jettisoning every teaching that doesn’t suit us, how do we remain Catholic? Where does it stop? I don’t mean we never inquire, examine, or question, but ignoring 2000 years of teaching on important moral questions seems foolhardy.
on November 17th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Thank you, Sunil, for pursuing Janice on this. When I read her response to my post, I gave up asking. What’s the point, if all I’m going to get is quotes from the Catechism, which, by the way, most of us have already read.
Janice: I think I can understand your desire to educate all of us (Are you a recent convert to Catholicism?), but please give the readers of this blog the benefit of the doubt. There is indeed a “splendor” to the truth, but its splendor doesn’t shine in the restating of it–rather, in the living of it.
So . . . how do you answer?
on November 17th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Sean H.
Do you know what I’m getting sick of? People throwing around poll numbers without any substantiation of their claims. Do you have any Web links to these seemingly damning statistics? Perhaps some bibliographical information? Are these polls conducted by independent researchers? If so, who? Thanks in advance for any help you can give.
on November 17th, 2006 at 11:11 am
Mark Jameson:
Regarding Catholic beliefs about the Real Presence, here’s a thoughtful review of a number of surveys. It was pulished in (where else?) Commonweal:
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/print_format.php?id_article=320
on November 17th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Mark,
NCR Poll
http://ncronline.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2005c/093005/Identity.pdf
Reports regarding a famous 1992 Gallup poll
http://uscatholic.claretians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5433&news_iv_ctrl=1289&abbr=usc_&JServSessionIdr011=npa15f0ii3.app1a
http://www.archdiocesesantafe.org/ABSheehan/ArchiveABSMessages/95.5.Eucharist.html
on November 17th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
I tend to be sceptical about the ability of pollsters to find out what the respondants really think. One reason for that is the respondants often do not themselves know what they really think, or at cannot put their thoughts into words in a satisfactory way. This has something to do with American education and the culture that forms it.
All that said, whatever Catholics really think about the Eucharist, the responses indicated offer some grounds for concern. But then how many homilies has anyone heard that made a serious effort to talk about the central truths of Christianity?
on November 17th, 2006 at 6:05 pm
Joseph Gannon wrote:
“All that said, whatever Catholics really think about the Eucharist, the responses indicated offer some grounds for concern. But then how many homilies has anyone heard that made a serious effort to talk about the central truths of Christianity?”
Very good question. But a prior question should probably be: “What are the central truths of Christianity?” Are they really the presence of Christ–body and blood, soul and divinity–in the Eucharist? Or are they the death and resurrection of Christ and the life in the Spirit that this death and resurrection has made possible for those who are baptized? Should priests be telling us how to vote or how not to contracept? Or should they be telling us how Jesus has made it possible for us to live out the teachings of the church that we hear so much about?
Obviously, these are rhetorical questions. It seems to me that much of the preaching in the American church is limited to *what* we must do and does not include *how* we have been made capable of doing it, or *how* we can encounter a God who can actually change our hearts so that we delight in doing what we know we should do.
So perhaps the polls are just as a fair an indication of the quality of the preaching and catechesis in the church as they are of the state of the people who are subjected to that preaching and catechesis.
Thanks, by the way, to Sean for providing the links. When I get a free moment, I’ll take a closer look at them.
on November 17th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
“. But a prior question should probably be: “What are the central truths of Christianity?” Are they really the presence of Christ–body and blood, soul and divinity–in the Eucharist? Or are they the death and resurrection of Christ and the life in the Spirit that this death and resurrection has made possible for those who are baptized? Should priests be telling us how to vote or how not to contracept? Or should they be telling us how Jesus has made it possible for us to live out the teachings of the church that we hear so much about?”
Exactly right, Mark. The sad truth is too many of the bishops and pastors are imposters. They have lost the spirit and the most frequent way they contact the People of God is through fund raising.
Episcopi semper reformandi!
on November 18th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Speaking of Gays in the Church, has anyone read Randy Engels’ new 1200-odd page book, The Rite of Sodomy? At $64, I’m not sure if I’d want to make that big a committment without some kind of input.
on November 18th, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Sean, most people (Catholics included) know the Catholic Church’s official position on things such as homosexuality, etc. I deliberately use words such as “crap,” “bowels,” and so on because I think they very well sum up what I and many other educated and informed folks see coming out of Rome and elsewhere (Baltimore, for example). No need for a lot of us to rehash what has been analyzed and critiqued ad infinitem.
Allow me, please, to pose a few questions on the rest of your November 16th comments:
If several Protestants are gathered in prayer around a table with bread, is Jesus with them? If yes, in what way? If you cite a distinction in the kind of Christ’s presence here, does it really make any difference in the final analysis?
If Joe is in a state of mortal sin, is facing imminent death, and does not have a priest to hear his confession, is Joe going to go to hell after expressing sorrow for his transgression(s) before passing from this life?
You are, by your own admission, “educated and informed.” Please share your thinking on the two situations I’ve raised.
Thanks.
on November 18th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
To mlj,
You asked Jimmy if, during his 34 years with his gay partner, he has “sincerely endeavor[ed] through prayer, fasting and the sacraments to live chastely.”
During the years of my (hetero) marriage, I had what I and many guys would think was a great sex life with my spouse. We also prayed. We did not fast as a rule (my wife was Protestant). We worshiped at both her church and mine on Sundays.
Anyway, what specific sex acts between marital partners would be unchaste?
Thank you.
on November 18th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
To mlj,
In responding to my question, please cite the official source(s) — the CCC, encyclical, papal speech, etc. — that identify unchaste sex acts. It’s not my intent to be graphic here. I merely want to know what the Catholic Church Morality Police would consider wrong if they were to enter my bedroom/living room/bathroom/dining room and observe my wife and me “at it,” so to speak.
Technical terms should suffice; I have a dictionary.
on November 19th, 2006 at 1:51 am
I know you asked Sean for his answers, Joe, but I’m taking the liberty of responding first because these are the types of questions that people tend to present as challenges that they’re sure have no adequate answer. In reality, they’re questions that reflect a basic misunderstanding of Church teachings on the topic being questioned. It’s no challenge.
Is Jesus with the Protestants or anyone else who gathers in his name? Of course he is. Is that the same as the Real Presence? No, it is not. Jesus is “with” you when you gather, but still separated from you. At the reception of the Eucharist, Jesus becomes a part of you. You become one with the body of Christ. Not the same thing and a spiritual union to God that is lacking without the Eucharist.
Does the bad man go to heaven if there’s no priest to hear his confession? Well, only God would know. There is nothing in Catholic teaching that says if you drop dead with a mortal sin on your soul and no access to a priest, then you are automatically condemned to hell. What we believe is at the moment of death what transpires is between the man and his maker. This does not invalidate the value of confession, but speaks to the omnipotence of God who knows better than anyone what lies in the heart of a person at the hour of their death. Whatever preparation such a person might need before being able to stand in the presence of God is something God alone would know. It is no different than the person who makes the sincere confession to a priest before dying. Their soul would be cleansed of mortal sin, but that’s not an immediate free pass to stand in the full light of God.
If you’d rather hear it from Sean, then I apologize for butting in, but these were the kind of questions that remind me of the old George Carlin routine about being on a boat and crossing the international date line.
on November 19th, 2006 at 9:13 am
Americans tend to be ignorant of European news, especially in the German speaking countries.
Austria suffered form two homosexual scandals which sped up the disintegration of the Church. Cardinal Groër, a personal choice of John Paul two, molested perhaps a thousand seminarians. The arch-conservative bishop Krenn opened his seminary at Sankt Polten to all those who claimed they had been kept out of other seminaries because of their orthodoxy. They had been kept out because they were shady characters. They were active homosexuals and collectors of child pornography. The Regent and SubRegent of the seminary were photographed as a Christmas party; one was French kissing a seminarian, the other had his hand on a seminarian’s groin.
The Vatican tried to ignore all this, and both liberals and conservatives in the Austrian Church were furious.
It is not surprising that the Vatican under a German pope has issued an instruction to exercise extreme caution about ordaining homosexuals. I think that even a sincere, celibate homosexual may have problems with repressed anger against God and the Church, and repressed anger was present in many cases of sexual abuse by the clergy.
on November 19th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
The cases described above could understandably cause some to make a link between homosexuality and their suitability for clergy.
However, I read about the above cases and it tells me that the people involved in helping men discern their vocation aren’t doing their jobs very well if they can’t weed out those who have repressed anger issues against the Church.
Similarly, the documented cases of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy against Catholic nuns in Nigeria (deemed to be a “serious problem”) speak more to the oversight of the clergy and the process that prepares them for a life of celibacy than giving any indication there’s something inherently wrong with heterosexual men remaining celibate.
Concentrate on fixing the process and you’re much more likely to get a better end result.
on November 19th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Donnar wrote: “Is Jesus with the Protestants or anyone else who gathers in his name? Of course he is. Is that the same as the Real Presence? No, it is not. Jesus is “with” you when you gather, but still separated from you. At the reception of the Eucharist, Jesus becomes a part of you. You become one with the body of Christ. Not the same thing and a spiritual union to God that is lacking without the Eucharist.”
Personally, I think it is against reason to assert such. Union with God is union with God. Distinctions are for those who glorify sacramentalism.
Yes the Eucharist is special and the Protestant who celebrate the Eucharist might have the same as a Catholic.
As for confession (auricular) it was unknown for the first eight centuries and was only made a law in the twelth. Common sense should always stop such silly reasoning.
God always grants forgiveness and does not wait for the discretion of a priest. The point is there will always be enough faithful people in the church who will provide forgiveness and reconciliation.
Auricular confession can have a very powerful use. Certainly more than psychiatry. But when abused the people will rightly ignore it.
on November 20th, 2006 at 10:09 am
Mark Jameson,
I take your point about centrality, but what I was complaining about was the lack of theological preaching generally, especially on the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the mission of Jesus with its significance for us.
on November 20th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Donna, thank you for your input (and no apology is necessary). Please rest assured that my questions did not reflect a “basic misunderstanding of Church teachings on the topic being challenged.” Instead, they were intended to provoke discussion beyond the approach of the CCC.
Regarding your comments on Christ’s presence, I agree that popular Catholic teaching makes a distinction between his presence in the eucharist, on the one hand, and his presence within a gathering, on the other. However, if Jesus is “with” us in the gathering, then he is truly present, eucharist or no eucharist. The popular understanding reflects catechesis but not genuine theology. I think it can be argued that a person in the state of grace has the Spirit within him/her since our bodies are, after all, temples of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, if a person in mortal sin humbly and sincerely takes communion, might such reception not be a moment of true forgiveness and grace ? (One is reminded here of the individual who merely wanted to touch Our Lord’s garment with the hope of being healed.) Theology challenges us to consider these kinds of questions that do not necessarily lend themselves to conventional catechetical answers.
I concur with your observations regarding confession with or without the services of a priest. The last sentence in your paragraph prompts me, however, to remind you (if any reminder is necessary here) that faithful participation in the sacrament of reconciliation is not per se (in your words) “an immediate free pass to stand in the full light of God.” I myself do happen to subscribe to the traditional belief that most of us will have some post-death preparation to stand in God’s presence whether we were given the last rites or not. I also happen to believe that God’s generosity is such that it may very well be the case that Hell will be empty when all is said and done.
While my questions were simple, I posed them with the idea that their answers can be anything but. I grew up with the Baltimore catechism with all its rote and simplistic “answers,” but my own life experiences, reading, and thoughtful discussions with others have convinced me that theology, professional or otherwise, beats the approach of the CCC hands-down.
on November 20th, 2006 at 11:35 am
To tell you the truth, the answers I gave are from more than what I’ve gained from the Catechism although I find the explanations there to be the most succinct. The answers I gave regarding the Real Presence are from what I’ve read of theology, particularly Frank Sheed who I think had an exceptional talent for bringing theological concepts into the realm of the non-scholars….like me.
And based on what I’ve read and discussed theologically (and without going into a long winded debate about it) I do not agree with the concept that Jesus being present with us when we gather in his name is the same as the Real Presence of the Eucharist. I believe there is a significant difference and it’s the main reason why I remain with the Church.
If a person makes a sincere act of contrition before receiving Communion and does submit to it humbly with faith that Christ will “say the word and I shall be healed”, then yes, there is a moment of true forgiveness and grace. But that’s not a new concept. I’ve been taught that since the 2nd grade. Again, this does not fully replace the role of the priest as confessor and the benefit of sacramental absolution, but it’s not an either/or proposition. It’s about availing oneself of all the graces God has to offer through the Church and the sacraments.
on November 20th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Joe,
Sorry I missed the quiz, and kudos to Donna for handling the answers so well. I don’t quite understand what it had to do with the discussion.
My point really wasn’t that I was well “informed and educated,” but that most of us, including me, aren’t. When a generation, like ours, sheds so many fundamental moral principles and Church teachings because they don’t suit us, and our answer to this is - we’re just very smart - it bothers me. We have come to the point that the ultimate sin is to believe in sin, and the ultimate value in life is self-esteem.
As to the value of “rote memorization” and the Catechism, I didn’t have the privilege of growing up with it. I was among the fortunate first generation of post V-II “Catechized.” You know, the one where 75% never go to Mass. I remember being told how lucky we were to not have to go through the “rote memorization” of the old Catechism. We figured it out with “thoughtful discussion,” guitar Masses, tearful retreats, and colorful felt banners. Let me entertain you and make you feel good about yourself.
Lucky us.
I just wish someone told me that me my purpose is to know, love and serve the Lord in this life so that I might be with him in the next. More useful, profound, and lasting advice I can’t recall.
on November 22nd, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Donna, if you believe there is a “significant difference” between the Lord’s presence in a gathering and his Real Presence in the eucharist, so be it. On this point, I would have to agree with Bill’s observation that any such distinction is one of “sacramentalism.” Clearly, Jesus is either with us or not with us. To elevate one kind of presence over another (which I think you do: “the main reason why I remain with the Church”) introduces a differential ranking and dichotomous thinking inconsistent with the Gospel message.
It’s not my intention to downplay the importance of Christ’s real presence in the eucharist. However, I think we also need to give equal weight to the biblical truth that Jesus is just as present within his gathering.