McCarrick sees crisis of faith

The Washington Times ^ | September 18, 2002 | Larry Witham

[american colleen]

Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick of Washington said yesterday that his church's mission is more difficult after a year of sexual scandal, but he believes the worst has passed and that the crisis may be more over belief than morals.

"While all this is going on, we're still trying to be faithful to the teaching of the Gospel, we're still trying to reach out and call people to holiness, we're still trying to make a contribution to the society," Cardinal McCarrick said.

[american colleen]

Interesting interview.

[american colleen]

For your reading pleasure.

[eastsider]

The cardinal said he is familiar with the debate over the root of the sexual-abuse problem in the church, which has involved a small number of pedophile priests and a larger number who are homosexual.... "I'm sure that [a subculture] has existed in certain places at certain times with a certain number, but I think there's a tendency [to] say, 'Oh, there are three [homosexuals]. So it must be half the house.'"

But Your Eminence, why are there any homosexuals?

[sinkspur]

But Your Eminence, why are there any homosexuals?

Can't keep 'em all out, east. If they're celibate, no matter how swishy, it can be tough to find another reason to kick them out.

There have always been homosexuals in the priesthood, and there always will be.

[Theresa]

No there is a man who seems to have a lot of common sense!

[exnavy]

WOW that first paragraph is difficult to get past. I am amazed at the self rightious justification of the desecration of Gods house.

[Salvation]

he believes the worst has passed and that the crisis may be more over belief than morals.

The opening statement would have me believe that he is clueless here as to the homosexuality problem among priests.

[Salvation]

Regarding certain criticisms of Catholic seminaries, he said: "Whether or not the seminary system was replete with theological dissidence and sexual problems, I certainly would not believe that this was ever the case in the United States."

In the dark or choosing not to believe the findings. Shall we write to him? </sarcasm off

[Domestic Church]

"The opening statement would have me believe that he is clueless here as to the homosexuality problem among priests."

Or he is part of the problem and is trying to diffuse it with a new target...blame a lack of belief not morals. This just doesn't wash either way. It sounds Clintonian. I hope he is just clueless.

[heyheyhey]

There have always been homosexuals in the priesthood, and there always will be.

Respectfully, where did you get the two ALWAYSs from? I know of some US dioceses, and I heard about many overseas where homosexuality bars a "candidate" from the ordination.

Another "revelation" of this kind was -- "many saints were homosexual." Where from do people get this kind of ideas?

[sinkspur]

Another "revelation" of this kind was -- "many saints were homosexual." Where from do people get this kind of ideas?

Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, a very conservative commentator and editor of FIRST THINGS, has stated this very thing...that there have been homosexual saints.

As to how homosexuals end up in the priesthood...if they're celibate, how would you know?

[heyheyhey]

As to how homosexuals end up in the priesthood...if they're celibate, how would you know?

Precisely!

And if the Saints were saintly, how would you know?

[eastsider]

You bring up an important point, sinkspur, which is what we mean by "homosexual." Is a homosexual strictly someone with same sex attraction, or someone both with same-sex attraction and who believes that same-sex attraction is not intrinsically disordered.

If the former, and the candidate for the seminary is chaste, there's no way of identifying his disordered condition save a direct question, which he could in good conscience avoid under the theory of "mental reservation," seeing as his private temptations are none of anyone's business.

If the latter, however, such a person holds a moral belief contrary to the Church, and under no circumstances should such a person be allowed to continue his formation as a priest and minister to the Catholic faithful. How we go about identifying such men is a good question. (Clearly, being "swishy" is not a reliable criterion -- Paul Schaeffer single handedly puts a lie to that notion : )

I don't see how identifying and removing those who obstinately hold false moral teachings should be any more difficult than identifying and removing those who obstinately persist in denying an article of the divine and catholic faith.