Posted on 02/27/2006 12:24:00 PM PST by NYer
ROME (CNS) -- Cardinal-designate William J. Levada said a priest who publicly announces he is homosexual makes it difficult for people to see the priest as representing Christ, the bridegroom of his bride, the church.
A public declaration of homosexuality places a priest "at odds with the spousal character of love as revealed by God and imaged in humanity," said the U.S. cardinal-designate, who is prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Cardinal-designate Levada made his remarks during a Feb. 26 homily as he presided over a Mass for the installation of the new rector of Rome's Pontifical North American College.
In the presence of some 170 seminarians, Msgr. James F. Checchio made a formal profession of faith and promised his fidelity to Catholic Church teaching as he took over as rector of the U.S. seminary in Rome.
In his homily, Cardinal-designate Levada reflected on the challenges priests face today and on the Sunday Scripture readings, which described God's love for his people as the love of a husband for a wife and described Jesus as the bridegroom of the church.
Referring first to "the tragic problem of sexual abuse of minors by clergy," the cardinal-designate said, "thanks be to God, it is now possible to say that the measures taken by the bishops on behalf of the church have put into place a comprehensive program of education, prevention and care for victims, as well as measures to ensure that abusive clergy are not returned to ministry."
"One of the more immediate challenges facing seminaries," he said, is the implementation of the Congregation for Catholic Education's November instruction that men with "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" should not be admitted to the seminary or ordained to the priesthood.
The instruction, however, made clear that the church was not questioning the validity of the ordinations of gay men who already are priests.
The cardinal-designate said the instruction "is not directly related to the U.S. sexual abuse crisis, but it is not without relevance for it," insofar as a study commissioned by the U.S. bishops identified homosexual behavior as a component in many clerical sex abuse cases.
Beyond the issue of psychosexual maturity, Cardinal-designate Levada said, "the question also needs to be viewed from its theological perspective," particularly in light of the biblical images of God's spousal relationship with his people and Gospel passages in which Jesus refers to himself as the bridegroom.
The doctrinal chief said he wanted to look specifically at "the situation of the gay priest who announces his homosexuality publicly, a few examples of which we have recently heard reported" in reaction to the Vatican document.
"I think we must ask, 'Does such a priest recognize how this act places an obstacle to his ability to represent Christ the bridegroom to his bride, the people of God? Does he not see how his declaration places him at odds with the spousal character of love as revealed by God and imaged in humanity?'" he said.
"Sadly, this provides a good example of the wisdom of the new Vatican instruction," he said.
The cardinal-designate also told the seminarians: "It is important for our people to hear us priests preach and teach about the fundamental character of God's love imprinted upon humanity in the original act of creation: 'God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them.'
"It is here that we find the basis for church teaching about marriage and about the family," he said. "It is here, too, that we find the basis for church teaching about homosexuality and the reason why proposals for recognition of homosexual marriage are contrary to sacred Scriptures and the natural law."
You mean like Aaron, who made a golden calf for the children of Israel to worship, and then was appointed their high priest?
Please understand, we're not saying that's optimal. But there are no clergymen who are not sinners. In any denomination.
Remember the book and movie (with Humphrey Bogart. )"The Left Hand of God?"
Dear PetroniusMaximus,
Which Bible do you use?
I just looked up Romans 2:27-29, and couldn't find "(or priest)" anywhere. Oh, I see, you added that.
'Nuff said.
;-)
sitetest
"I just looked up Romans 2:27-29, and couldn't find "(or priest)" anywhere. Oh, I see, you added that. "
No friend, here is the point. The Bible teaches that we are not what we are outwardly if we are not that inwardly as well.
A Jew is not a Jew just because he is outwardly a Jew. He is only a true Jew if he is a true Jew in the heart.
And a man of God is not a true man of God by virtue of some office, but only if he is truly a man of God in his heart.
See the distinction?
Now you have just called into question the validity of your own baptism. How do you know for sure that you have truly been baptized?
-A8
"How do you know for sure that you have truly been baptized?"
What do you mean?
-A8
Dear PetroniusMaximus,
That is your interpretation. In that we live in a country without a state religion, you're entitled to your opinion.
However, I have a hard time seeing how your view isn't Donatism. In that the Donatist heresy was condemned and discarded early in the first millennium, I find it puzzling, as a Catholic, that we're still debating the question more than a millenium and a half after it was decisively settled by the Church.
As an evangelical, it may be that you reject the authoritative witness and teaching of the Universal, Undivided Church, preferring your own interpretation. However, for Catholics and Orthodox (I've pinged a few Orthodox who can speak for themselves and their Church on what they think of Donatism), your rejection of the infallible doctrines of the Undivided Church may seem like little more than breath-taking arrogance.
sitetest
Notice how you switched from "Jew" to "true Jew". Gnostics hold on to the "inner" and forget the "outer". Ritualists hold on to the "outer" and forget the "inner". But actually, both are important. In all these things, form and matter are distinct principles, and must both be preserved. The tendency of Protestants has always been toward Gnosticism. For a good antidote, read Lang's Why Matter Matters.
-A8
If the validity of a baptism comes only from the earnestness of the person seeking baptism, then it would not matter whether the person administering the baptism was in serious sin. Right? In other words, in your opinion, in baptism, God is not using *any* instrument, God is simply seeing the heart of the seeker. As long as the seeker's heart is sincere, and if that is the only thing that makes a baptism valid, then the baptized person would have a legitimate baptism if they were baptized in oil, in vinegar, in pig's blood, by anyone in any state of sin, in the name of any deities whatsoever.
On the other hand, if the moral condition of the person administering the baptism can affect the validity of the baptism, then the safest thing to do to ensure that one has a valid baptism, is first to make sure that one is in a state of repentance and moral cleanliness, and then baptize oneself.
-A8
sitetest,
You gotta bunch of highfalutin words there to explain why a pedophile sodomite is a valid priest befor God.
But I'm not buying it.
Right is right and wrong is wrong, and a pedophile sodomite is not a man of God - he is of the devil.
And I don't care if you've got enough "Tradition" to fill the ocean, if you can't see a simple fact like that your "Tradition" is wrong.
Period.
I think that in the quote cited, the author of the article using the word "gay" in an imprecise and misleading way: I think he didn't mean a priest who commits sodomy, but a priest who experiences (and resists) homosexual temptation.
But you bring up a good point. If a person was married in the Catholic Church but never actually intended to keep the vows, the marriage would be considered to be "null" = no sacrament, invalid, defective vows.
But if a man is ordained a priest in the Catholic Church similarly not intending to keep the vows, wouldn't his ordination be considered "null"? I wonder if any of our Catholic Freepers can answer this.
If my baptism was valid it was because I was responding in faith and obedience
The validity of your baptism didn't have anything to do with your "response". It's not about something that you do, or you did, or you can do, or might want to do, or anything like that. God saves sovereignly, not through "your response" to anything.
God will not use a dirty instrument.
There are no "clean instruments". All your righteousness is but filthy rags to him. Have you forgotten?
I don't think so. Diocesan priests don't take vows, anyway; they make promises.
The sacramental matter of matrimony is the vows. The sacramental matter of ordination is the imposition of hands and the anointing. They're different situations.
Well said.
It's also true for a priest.
If a priest is not a priest in his heart, he is not a good priest. Note however, he is still a priest.
Just because a cop takes bribes, committs crimes and completely dishonors his profession, does not mean that he is not really a cop. If he was sworn in as a cop, a cop he remains, although a bad one. He is still a cop until his badge is taken away.
Ditto for those who've received the sacrament of Holy Orders. It is conferred by the Church and the sacrament does not become null and void due to the recipient's perfidy. Now the Church may cancel the sacrament and defrock the priest, but Holy Orders is the equivalent of the cop's badge.
"Just because a cop takes bribes, committs crimes and completely dishonors his profession, does not mean that he is not really a cop"
Can a devil be a valid priest?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.