Posted on 01/13/2003 3:22:30 PM PST by Remedy
A word on the ordination of 'gay priests'
"Persistently suffering a powerful temptation to commit acts against nature is not a characteristic of a normal, psychologically healthy person."
-Michael Schwartz
The Vatican is considering barring men from the priesthood who display homosexual tendencies. In response, some liberal Catholics contend that candidates' "sexual orientation" be ignored or even accommodated, as they champion the cause of "gay priests." Here is a response from a well-informed Catholic, Michael Schwartz, CWA's Vice President for Government Relations:
* * *
The essential problem with this position is that it posits the category "sexual orientation" as an immutable characteristic like blood type, and then completely disconnects that characteristic from behavioral consequences. To use more properly theological terms, what the liberals are pleased to call "orientation" is a persistent temptation to commit sins against nature.
Such a persistent temptation is not a sin, and may even serve as an avenue to holiness and spiritual perfection to someone who responds to this temptation by dedicating himself to prayer, purity and a wholehearted love of God - for God does not allow any of us to be tempted beyond our ability (with the help of His grace) to resist that temptation. Therefore, it is certainly the case that someone who suffers this kind of persistent temptation can become a great saint.
However, it is necessary to recognize that persistently suffering a powerful temptation to commit acts against nature is not a characteristic of a normal, psychologically healthy person. Those who suffer this condition are wounded and in need of psychological and emotional healing.
In normal times and places, this disability might not necessarily be a bar to ordination to the priesthood. Certainly, every priest who is ordained is subject to temptations - probably to very great temptations since Satan loves to snare a priest - to which virtually all of them fall at times, and at least some of them are afflicted with one kind of disability or another.
In normal times, a priest suffering from this kind of disability would be supported in resisting temptation by his brother priests, by the expectations of the faithful, and by the generally healthy (at least in this respect) tenor of the culture. However, at a time when the culture is not only not supportive of virtue but militantly hostile toward anyone who would dare to resist a temptation to unnatural vice, and in which even the priesthood has been compromised by the presence of "pro-gay" advocates, it would not only be unwise to ordain a man known to suffer this condition but would be a cruel act of placing his salvation in jeopardy.
|
New York Gay Legislator Advocatesdiscrimination Against Catholic Priests Thomas Duane, a gay state senator from New York, declared yesterday that all Catholic priests should be barred from leading a prayer in the legislature. Duane became angry when Albany Bishop Howard Hubbard delivered the legislative session's opening prayer. He sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno demanding that no priest should be allowed to pray in the Senate. Duane cited the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church as justification for his request. |
Courage is a network of Roman Catholics whose mission is to "provide spiritual support for men and women striving to live chaste lives in accordance with the Catholic Church's pastoral teaching on homosexuality." Write to Courage, c/oChurch of St John the Baptist, 210 W 31st Street, New York, NY 10001. The phone number is (212) 268-1010. There are chapters in many major cities, including New York, Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Chicago
Federalism Project: Supreme Court
Are State Sodomy Prohibitions Unconstitutional?
Lawrence v. Texas No. 02-0102
In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court will review a Texas law that criminalizes homosexual (but not heterosexual) sodomy. The inconveniences of democratic, decentralized decision making will be pitted against the charm of judicial fiat. Judicial fiat will win. For those who don't remember Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), it's just as well; the decision, and its cautionary approach to finding new constitutional rights, is about to be discarded.
That is too bad. The country has enjoyed a rough consensus on sodomy statutes. Most states don't have them. A few-increasingly few-still do but don't enforce them. (Lawrence, like Bowers, is a trumped-up test case.) That legislative-driven outcome is both a bit hypocritical and dissatisfying to fanatics on both sides. But the formula has allowed states to reflect their citizens' varied moral sentiments. It has allowed the liberalizers to make progress. Above all, it has spared us a national, first-principles debate about, of all things, sodomy.
What possessed the Court to yank up this made-up case from a Texas criminal court? Likely answer: the four liberal Justices, who think they can pick up a fifth or sixth anti-Bowers vote from Justice Kennedy or O'Connor. Nor is it far-fetched to surmise that the cert granters in this case had their eyes on the prospect of a judicial nomination fight, where the homosexual rights issue will be very awkward for the administration and its prospective nominee. Ñ
The Supreme Court recognizes minority status only for those groups which 1) have suffered a history of discrimination, 2) are powerless to help themselves and 3) are defined by immutable characteristics.
Ñ Ñ Ñ
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 US 186 (1986)
After being charged with violating the Georgia statute criminalizing sodomy by committing that act with another adult male in the bedroom of his home, respondent Hardwick (respondent) brought suit in Federal District Court, challenging the constitutionality of the statute insofar as it criminalized consensual sodomy. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the Georgia statute violated respondent's fundamental rights.
Held: The Georgia statute is constitutional. Pp. 190-196 .
(a) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable. Pp. 190-191 .
(b) Against a background in which many States have criminalized sodomy and still do, to claim that a right to engage in such conduct is "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty" is, at best, facetious. Pp. 191-194 .
(c) There should be great resistance to expand the reach of the Due Process Clauses to cover new fundamental rights. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily would take upon itself further authority to govern the country without constitutional authority. The claimed right in this case falls far short of overcoming this resistance. Pp. 194-195 .
(d) The fact that homosexual conduct occurs in the privacy of the home does not affect the result. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 , distinguished. Pp. 195-196 .
(e) Sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an inadequate rationale to support the laws. P. 196 .
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 US 186 (1986) BURGER, C.J., Concurring Opinion
As the Court notes, ante at 192 , the proscriptions against sodomy have very "ancient roots." Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law. See Code Theod. 9.7.6; Code Just. 9.9.31. See also D. Bailey, Homosexuality [p*197] and the Western Christian Tradition 70-81 (1975). During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed. 25 Hen. VIII, ch. 6. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *215. The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.
This is essentially not a question of personal "preferences," but rather of the legislative authority of the State. I find nothing in the Constitution depriving a State of the power to enact the statute challenged here. ++++"Rejuvenating Blackstone" Ñ
World AIDS Day: Reflections on the Pandemic
As a prelude to an attempted takeover of the church, Hitler removed some of his opposition by falsely accusing churchmen of treason, theft, or sexual malpractices. Goebbels, the propaganda minister, insisted that those trials be published in detail in newspapers, thus parading lurid details about known ministers, priests, and nuns. Priests who warned parents against letting their children become part of the Hitler Youth were subject to blackmail. Thus Hitler silenced the mouths of those who would dare oppose him. Catholic priests, nuns, and church leaders were arrested on trumped-up charges, and religious publications were suppressed." Lutzer, Erwin W., Hitler's Cross, p114, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), Ñ
"Extensive research by Kevin E. Abrams has revealed that whereas homosexuals were put into death camps, they were never targeted for extermination as a class and were treated far better than most other concentration camp victims. Two years after Hitler's victory [the 1933 election[, the term "unnatural" was purged from the definition of homosexuality in the German Criminal Code. Even gay historian Jonathan Katz reports that, though police repeatedly apprehended homosexual actors and artists engaged in sodomy, they were not to be arrested. Ñ
It would have been strange indeed if the Nazis had singled out homosexuals for special persecution since the movement itself was rampant with various kinds of sexual perversion. Historian Samuel Igra states that Hitler's initial Brownshirts began as an exclusive homosexual and bisexual organization. Hitler's personal secretary, Rudolf Hess, was a bisexual known in homosexual circles as "Fraulein Anna." Homosexuality was rampant in Hitler's inner circle as well as in the SS, as boys rounded were rounded up from the Hitler Youth to participate in sexual orgies. Of course Hitler railed against homosexuals, just as he did occultists, though he himself was a dedicated satanist." (Lutzer, pp. 82,84) (See also Abrams, K.E. "The Lambda Report," August 1994, p. 8.)
Sadomasochism That sadomasochism and homoeroticism often occur together with Nazism in the Holocaust film is a fact that has long been recognized and is frequently observed. Ilan Avisar, in Screening the Holocaust, traces what he calls the connection of Nazism and "sexual deviance" to Rossellini's Open City.[1] Gerd Gemünden suggests that in 1942, "the association of male homosexuality with sadism and perversion [as in the effeminate portrayal of Heydrich in Hangmen Also Die] ... anticipates postwar films such as The Damned (Visconti 1969) and Night Porter (Cavani 1974)."[2]
[1] Ilan Avisar, Screening the Holocaust: Cinema's Images of the Unimaginable (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1988), pp. 134-48
[2] Gerd Gemünden, "Brecht in Hollywood: Hangmen Also Die and the Anti-Nazi Film," TDR 43 (4) (Winter 1999): 65-7; The earliest book in English to conflate Nazism with sexual perversion was Samuel Igra's Germany's National Vice (London: Quality Press, Ltd., 1945). Ñ
...the Nazi movement was "in fact and by certain aspects of its avowed ideology drenched through and through with homo-erotic feeling and practice." He also wrote that the Nazis identified with the ancient Greeks and were "well-purged of Judaeo-Christian inhibitions" while "returning to the noble practices of their Greek ancestors," although encumbered by "an obscure feeling of guilt inherited from 1,500 years of apparent submission to the Judaeo-Christian ethic." Ludwig Lewisohn, "The New Kultur," The Nation, June 21, 1933, p. 695. Ñ
The Poisoned Stream "Gay" Influence in Human History Volume One Germany 1890-1945
Igra's primary value to us today is that he was an eyewitness to the changes that occurred in Germany; an eyewitness with a uniquely prophetic sense of the danger of "gay" influence in society. I consider it a great privilege to be able to review his work for the modern reader.
Igra's Thesis: Homosexuality Was at the Root of Nazi Evil
"I had finished the writing of [Germany's National Vice]," writes Samuel Igra, "when my attention was called to a British White Paper, 'Concerning the treatment of German Nationals (including the Jews) in Germany,' in which the following statement is made: 'The explanation for this outbreak of sadistic cruelty may be that sexual perversion, and, in particular, homosexuality, are very prevalent in Germany. It seems to me that mass sexual perversion may offer an explanation of this otherwise inexplicable outbreak.' [Page 20. His Majesty's Stationary Office, 1939].
"The author of that statement is Mr. R. T. Smallbones, who was British Consul-General at Frankfort-on-Main from 1932 until the outbreak of the war in 1939. Previous to 1932 he had been stationed in other German cities. His opinion therefore rests on firsthand experience of the German people for a long period of years. I am convinced that his explanation is the correct one. For, as a matter of fact, the widespread existence of sexual perversion in Germany, not only at the time the Hitler movement rose to power but also under the Kaiser's regime, is notorious... And authorities on criminal sociology are agreed that there is a causal connection between mass sexual perversion and the kind of mass atrocities committed by the Germans (ibid:7).
The Roehm Purge, then, was not a "moral cleansing" of the Nazi ranks, but a re-alignment of power behind the German government which was primarily forced upon Hitler by powerful political elements whose support he needed to maintain control. Igra goes on to point out that not only did the majority of the SA homosexuals survive the purge, but that the massacre was largely implemented by homosexuals.
The law against homosexual conduct had existed in Germany for many years prior to the Nazi regime as Paragraph 175 of the Reich Criminal Code, to wit: "A male who indulges in criminally indecent activity with another male, or who allows himself to participate in such activity, will be punished with imprisonment" (Burleigh and Wipperman:188). When Hitler came to power he used this law as a means of tracking down and punishing those homosexuals who, in the words of one victim, "had defended the Weimar Republic, and who had tried to forestall the Nazi threat" (ibid.:183). Later he expanded the law and used it as a convenient tool to detain other enemies of the regime.
In February of 1933, Hitler banned pornography, homosexual bars and bathhouses, and groups which promoted "gay rights" (Plant:50). Ostensibly, this decree was a blanket condemnation of all homosexual activity in Germany, but in practice it served as just another means to find and destroy anti-Nazi groups and individuals. "Hitler," admit Oosterhuis and Kennedy, "employed the charge of homosexuality primarily as a means to eliminate political opponents, both inside his party and out" (Oosterhuis and Kennedy:248).
The masculine homosexuals in the Nazi leadership selectively enforced this policy only against their enemies and not against all homosexuals. Even Rector lends credence to this perspective, citing the fact that the decree "was not enforced in all cases" (Rector:66). Another indication is that the pro-Nazi Society for Human Rights continued to participate in German society for several years after the decree. In The Racial State, Michael Burleigh and Wolfgang Wippermann remind us that Rohm was a leading member of the SHR; and we know from Anthony Read and David Fisher that the SHR was still active in Germany as late as 1940 (Read and Fisher:245). Furthermore, Oosterhuis and Kennedy write that "although he was well known as a gay-activist, [Adolf] Brandt was not arrested by the Nazis" (Oosterhuis and Kennedy:7). Some of Brandt's files were confiscated by the Nazis in their attempt to gather all potentially self-incriminating evidence.
In 1935, Paragraph 175 was amended with Paragraph 175a which criminalized any type of behavior that could be construed as indicating a homosexual inclination or desire (Burleigh and Wipperman:190). (Interestingly, the new criminal code addressing homosexuality deleted the word "unnatural" from the definition — Reisman, 1994:3). This new law provided the Nazis with an especially potent legal weapon against their enemies It will never be known how many non-homosexuals were charged under this law but it is indisputable that the Nazis used false accusations of homosexuality to justify the detainment and imprisonment of many of their opponents. "The law was so loosely formulated," writes Steakley, "that it could be, and was, applied against heterosexuals that the Nazis wanted to eliminate...the law was also used repeatedly against Catholic clergymen" (Steakley:111). Kogon writes that "The Gestapo readily had recourse to the charge of homosexuality if it was unable to find any pretext for proceeding against Catholic priests or irksome critics" (Kogon:44).
The charge of homosexuality was convenient for the Nazis to use against their political enemies because it was so difficult to defend against and so easy to justify to the populace. Since long before the Nazis, homosexuals had generally lived clandestine lives, so it was not unusual for revelations of their conduct to come as a surprise to their communities when it became a police matter. This is not to say that actual homosexuals were not prosecuted under the law. Many were. But the law was used selectively against the "Femmes."
Ñ Ñ Ñ
Gay Nazis: the Role of Homosexuality in Nazism & Hitler's Rise to ... Thus butch hypermasculinity, visibility for homosexuals, and organization were the three necessary ingredients in the mix which allowed the SA leaders to make their unique and essential contribution to the rise of Nazism. Another important consideration is that visibility is enabled when homosexuality assumes a political voice. In this way, the politicization of homosexuality, which supported gays in the process of socially identifying themselves as such, was a necessary condition for Hitler's success.
It is here that the battle with dissidents lie, I believe...
Pray to St. Peter Damian for reform.
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.