Posted on 05/03/2002 6:38:30 PM PDT by history_matters
You ask for stats to back up my argument of “self-identification,” but, unfortunately for our society, all you have to do is look around. How many organizations define themselves as gay and/or lesbian? How many define themselves as straight or heterosexual? How many laws protecting gays/lesbians have been proposed or passed, as opposed to laws protecting heterosexuals, specifically, by that term? How many “tolerance” programs, teacher-training programs, textbooks, etc. that present homosexuality as an “alternate lifestyle” have been mandated in schools? How many such programs have been introduced in the public sector that glorify heterosexuality?
How many media stories, sitcoms, TV series, talk shows (and talk show hosts) day after day, tell us the stories of those who identities as “gay” are central to the story? Why is there a group of Congressman who identify themselves as “gay,” when there’s no such group identifying themselves as “straight?” Why are there “gay pride” parades, and no “staight-pride” parades?
And lastly, if homosexuality is not a problem for a priest, why is it such a point of contention? If a homosexual wants to enter the priesthood so earnestly, and he is good, spiritual, celibate man, why would he identify himself as “gay?” What would be the point – if he doesn’t engage in homosexual acts? Could it be the same rationale – acceptance of this “sexual identity,” -- that propels the proliferation of laws and programs for acceptance throughout the country? Could it be the aim of those homosexuals who want to enter and/or remain in the priesthood that not only their “identity” be accepted, but, as in society itself, that the homosexual act be accepted? Is that why celibacy itself is under attack?
???? The irascible, appetitive, and concupiscible tendencies latent or manifest in the average and typical human condition are not on the same level as same-sex attraction. We don't have people receiving multimillion out-of-court settlements because they saw a priest eat too much or grimace with distemper. This "scholar" really needs to do some homework. Homosexuality is considered a "grave disorder." That's a whole different ballgame. So to speak.
Hey,Cardinal McCarrick! You've got a problem over at Catholic Univ. with this Grabowski character. He needs to start studying theology and philosophy all over again from ground up.
Either you believe that it's ok for priests to molest little girls, or you don't believe that little girls are molested by priests. Which is it?
I want all molestors dealt with, and you seem to be fixated on just the boy-molestors.
So which is it: girls aren't molested by priests or priests should be allowed molest girls.
There is, of course, another option, but I don't see a reason to stoop quite that low.
Wrong.
celibate
celibate (sèl´e-bît) noun
1.One who abstains from sexual intercourse, especially by reason of religious vows.
2.One who is unmarried.
adjective
1.Abstaining from sexual intercourse, especially by reason of religious vows.
2.Unmarried; unwed.
[Latin caelibâtus, From caelebs, caelib-, unmarried.]
chaste
chaste (châst) adjective
chaster, chastest
1.Morally pure in thought or conduct; decent and modest.
2.a. Not having experienced sexual intercourse; virginal.
b. Abstaining from unlawful sexual intercourse.
c. Abstaining from sexual intercourse; celibate.
3.Pure or simple in design or style; austere.
[Middle English, from Old French, from Latin castus.] - chaste´ly adverb
- chaste´ness noun
I already addressed it in #160, but you knew that, didn't you.
You know what I think? I am usually not this direct, but you deserve it.
I believe you have never accept Christ, I don't think you ever will, and you are destined to spend eternity in Hell.
I disagree that the priesthood is a "greater good." It is a different good from marriage, and the two are not incompatible (as the Eastern Rite experience testifies). Plus, this view that the priesthood is superior to the plain old lay life is an ugly form of clericalism that we need to get rid of.
think in terms of a life long accumulation of Sacramental Grace and the transmission of Faith onto the next generation and the Sacramental graces from that generation and so on...it is an enormous amount...remember -"To God, all points in time are present in their immediacy."CCC)
Tis a bizarre concept to speak in terms of an "amount" of grace, as if Divine Life were like water in bottle, "accumulating" as in a storehouse. Grace is not a thing; it is the Life of God present in one, which makes that person grow in identification with Christ as one acts more and more like Christ.
But the priesthood does not, in itself, demand this; the Church in the Latin Rite demands this. I agree with you that Bevilacqua seems to be saying that the priesthood is a "greater good," which is why his theology is bad. There are many gifts, but One Spirit.
Let's rid ourselves of this triumphalist notion that the priesthood is a superior way of life. It is not. It is a different way of life, to which some are called. Others are called to do other things in the Vineyard.
The "superiority" of Holy Orders has led many a man to think that he is, in fact, superior to the rest of men, which is as pharasaical a view as one could have.
The Catholic Catechism disagrees with you:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
And, in 2357, the Catechism says "Its (homosexuality) psychological genesis remains largely unexplained."
Possibly environment, but possibly genetic as well.
I believe you have never accept Christ, I don't think you ever will, and you are destined to spend eternity in Hell.
"Hell" would be an eternity with people like you, but I doubt that's what you meant.
I'm not arguing for "welcoming" homosexuals into the priesthood. What I am saying is that Bevilacqua's explanation of why homosexuals should not be admitted is weak, and flawed.
There are many homosexuals in the priesthood today. You can guess who they are as well as I can. But, most of them are also celibate, which means you will not be able to roust them out of the ministry under present canon law.
I chuckle at those who say we should use "psychological testing" to screen out homosexuals, when some of those same posters, on another thread, said it was modern psychology which has gotten us into the current mess.
They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
This is very true, but the Cardinal's point is do they belong in the Church as priests?
It's quite likely he doesn't (most priests I know and you know don't identify themselves in any way sexually), but there seems to be a desire now that he do so, so that he can be rousted from the priesthood or prevented from entering a seminary.
See, that's the problem here. When I was in the seminary, back in the 70s, there was no "identification" of one's sexual orientation. It was never discussed, no one ever talked about sexual attraction to women or men. It was as if we were asexual. In fact, much of our training just assumed we were; that we had all come to terms with celibacy, that that issue was settled, and now let's all just ignore our urgings and follow the Lord. When a man decided that he couldn't do that, he left on his own, or, if he was discovered in some compromising position, he was kicked out.
Now, I know that some of these men were homosexual; I could guess which ones, but I could be wrong. The thing is, they didn't talk about it, act on it, or give any hint that they were "gay".
It would be real shame at this point to force these men to somehow declare their sexual orientation in some kind of witch hunt to rid the priesthood of all gays.
This is what Cardinal George was referring to when he said on MTP that it is a difficult thing in most cases to determine which priests are gay. Nor, I would contend, should the Church do that.
Screen for homosexuality in the future, but let's not destroy some of these good men who are trying their best to live holy and celibate lives because we want to "purify" the Church of gays.
You couldn't do that even if you tried.
That's over the top, SP. Why not pray for him, instead, or just not say anything at all?
You're a better man than this.
This week we were treated in this community to an article in the local paper explaining where a 64 year old priest assigned to the neighboring parish had disappeared last year. He married the Director of Liturgy!
The other neighboring Parish just learned that a priest who had served there 18 years (now deceased) had molested numerous boys during his life as a priest. He, too, was moved around the State -- like the priests in Boston. Parish members have suggested removing his name from the Parish hall because it is an embarrassment. Prior to this revelation he was noted (in all his parishes) as a pastor who could "get things done" in a building campaign.
And then there was the Deacon I knew in another city (married with 8 children) who left his wife for a parishioner just 2 years after he was ordained. So much for married clerics.
We must pray for the leaders of our church.
I have a dear friend who was in the minor and major seminaries for about 12 years, and he reports the same thing.
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.