Agree on all of Dom’s comments.

Don’t know if you saw this story in your local papers:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-050916seminary,0,5180742.story?coll=chi-news-hed

The police badges and gun suggest that someone goes out pretending to be a policeman—what innocent activity would need those props?

What the newspaper article doesn’t tell you is that one of the seminarians was a sheriff’s deputy before entering the seminary and most likely remained a reserve deputy afterward. No need to find something nefarious in it.

I’m sure that once he’s able to speak and hire a lawyer, the charge will be dropped.

What a bizarre statement! He seems not to realize that sodomy is - objectively speaking - one of the gravest of sins.

There are certain things a suitable candidate for the priesthood would not do no matter how drunk.

Then again, how much should a suitable candidate for the priesthood be drinking.

“What the newspaper article doesn’t tell you is that one of the seminarians was a sheriff’s deputy before entering the seminary and most likely remained a reserve deputy afterward. No need to find something nefarious in it.

I’m sure that once he’s able to speak and hire a lawyer, the charge will be dropped.”

How did you know information that was not in the papers?

I live by this seminary and have driven its grounds many times—sometimes at night.  The roads are narrow, curving and slightly rolling and have (at least) two bridges over a man-made lake.  It’s an area in which deer roam, but one that a driver would traverse slowly thus not be likely to get in a fatal crash avoiding a deer.

Yes, Fr. Wehner’s example seemed particularly ‘lame’ to me - using the most charitable interpretation. Actually, it appeared more like an apologia – and not a very appropriate one at that.

One thing we don’t hear preached about much these days is: avoiding the ‘occasions of sin’. Of course we don’t hear much about ‘sin’ period - but that’s another discussion. It is not enough to avoid sin, we must avoid those situations where we may be tempted to sin – or know from past experience that sin is likely to result. That is assumed – or should be - under our ‘firm purpose of amendment’ when we go to Confession.

To say “but, I was drunk…” as a mitigating circumstance for any sin is no excuse once we know that getting drunk causes us to sin. We knew that going in – so that was the ‘occasion’ we should have avoided.

That said, being drunk is not going to cause us to do something against our nature – unless we already had a pre-disposition towards it.

As St. Thomas would say: the argument fails…

I agree with Wehner. Sometimes under the influence of alcohol, people will do or say what they would never consider doing when in their right minds.  Doesn’t make it right, or good, but it happens.  I wouldn’t be overly judgmental or moralistic about it.
(And, Dom, you should know from previous posts that I am a faithful orthodox Catholic, not a liberal apologizer.)

In vine veritas est

How did you know information that was not in the papers?

It was on his blog. (Linked some another Catholic bloggers site.)

I agree with Wehner. Sometimes under the influence of alcohol, people will do or say what they would never consider doing when in their right minds.  Doesn’t make it right, or good, but it happens.  I wouldn’t be overly judgmental or moralistic about it.

I don’t care how tequila I put down my gullet, I’m NOT going to be interested in sex with men. It’s not the sort of thing you do “accidentally.”

Remind me not to ever offer you a drink.

vino that is…

” The Vatican continues to be obsessed about homosexuality,” said Debbie Weill, executive director of DignityUSA, a group for gay Catholics.

“The church is fostering a climate of hostility towards some of its very best priests and bishops. This is not the church Christ called us to be,” she said.”

Okay Ms. Weill, just give the names of those priests and Bishops…we’ll take it from here.

I’m a little disappointed that it is only a gay witch-hunt. I was hoping for a full blown Inquisition.

Dom,
May I give you another view on this. I may have said it on your website before. Granted I am a former problem drinker in my pre-Catholic days, so I do not drink now anyway, except in extremely rare very controlled situations. Then it is maybe just a small shot of Kahlua or one beer and I know I will not be driving for the rest of the night. However, when I was in the seminary a priest friend told me that alcohol and celibacy do not mix.

Alcohol is never an excuse for any behavior but celibacy is an important reason to just not drink. Does not St. Paul say to run so as to win and that athletes deny themselves things so as to win the prize.

I do not buy the rector’s excuse at all as the reality is that alcohol can be used in moderation, but it does not have to be used at all. Therefore, the seminary should endorse a dry policy. They are after all training priests in how to live as priests aren’t they?

People do stupid things when they have to much to drink. Getting behind the wheel of a car by the way is just one of many of them.

Just because someone kills someone drunk driving does not make him a hit man, but it does not excuse his behavior or take away the hurt.

I’m not saying you can’t do stupid things when drunk. What I’m disputing is that you can accidentally engage in gay sex while drunk, but not be gay or not have high-level same-sex attraction when sober.

Speaking of occasions of sin, is not immoderate drinking, i.e. drinking to get drunk, the sin of gluttony?

Dom, same-sex attraction is a spectrum.  How much does it take for you to label someone as gay?  However much that is, it might hardly ever impinge on someone’s consciousness under normal circumstances, but then under the influence of drugs or alcohol and in the right circumstances, they might find themselves doing something they wouldn’t otherwise.  I think it can happen with all manner of things when people are drunk.  And I don’t say that as an excuse, just an explanation. Again, there are many degrees of same sex attraction, just as there are degrees of other temptations.
And, Dom, having seen your pictures, i don’t think you have to worry about anyone trying to advantage of you while drunk.

That should have read: “...take advantage of you…:

Furthermore, I’ll leave it to your imagination as to whether or not that’s meant as a compliment.

And, as far as “in vino veritas est,” I think that it is only partly correct- there can also be a lot of lying, dishonesty, and simple mis-perception related to alcohol’s effect on the brain (“No really, I can drive just fine- I’m sure of it.”)  Overall, I think alcohol causes much more misery than it alleviates in our society.

Fr. Carr perhaps remembers the days when priests were required to bring a priest-companion to all social events, including home visits; were required to be in the rectory by 10PM; were required to live in the rectory/community; were carefully instructed to remain distant (and cold, if necessary) to women…

Of course, common sense is no longer common, and these prudential rules have been abandoned.

There is an old saying: A little wine goes in, a little truth comes out. Fr. James Wehner’s excuse reminds me of the women who say that their husbands only beat them when their drunk.

“I don’t know about anyone else but when I get drunk, I head straight to the gay bath house.  I don’t know what it is.  I know I’m TOTALLY straight, and yet, after four Cosmopolitans I can’t live without being dragged around by a RuPaul clone in a studded dog collar.”

Give us a break, Father Wehner (and, uh, how is that name pronounced…?) 

It seems there is one more dot to connect: Pittsburgh has a bishop.  Think he doesn’t know all about Father’s views?

Wow.  Talk about uncharitable.  If you actually read what Fr. Wehner said in the article, you would be ashamed of yourself for writing in such a vein.  He also noted that he generally supported the views of the priest in charge of the apostolic visitation.  Taking one bit of what someone has said, misrepresenting it, and making judgments based on that is exactly why so many people are turned off by those who call themselves Christians.

You know, Thomas, for someone terribly exercised over “hypermoralism” that’s an amusing jab.  I read the whole article by Ann Rodgers.  I read all of Father Wehner’s words.  Based on them, and on the overall context here, substituting “McBrien” for “Wehner” and you get the exact same gist.
 
If my tone is tart, it’s because I’m fed up with the “it’s not a black and white issue/I wouldn’t read too much into Archbishop O’Brien’s words/drinking is a legit excuse for just about anything” kabuki dance that rectors like this do all the time.

By their subtle objections to common-sense Vatican directives ye shall know them.

Then again, I merely call myself a Christian.

The biggest problems are not the current seminaries or seminarians. It’s the gay priests who were ordained in the 70s and 80s who became ordinaries. These are the guys that created the “Lavendar Mafia.” They’re alive and well and in-charge.

Then act like one, Patrick.

In other words, nowhere did this priest say drinking was a legitimate excuse for anything.  He simply offered a scenario that could plausibly happen and pointed out that things are indeed not always black-and-white.  I’m objecting to your mischaracterization of what he said, and your implication that he is a homosexual sympathizer.  As Christians, shouldn’t we err on the side of charity in interpreting what people say, and not be so judgmental about their motives?

“Some aren’t getting it at home,” the man added. “Some say, ‘I’m not even gay. I’m just bored.’ “

a quote from an NYT article today about anonymous gay sex.

So if boredom can cause a straight guy to have homosexual sex, then why shouldn’t alcohol be able to ?

Couldn’t Fr.Wehner’s words be interpreted in a different way, namely about the issue of how should a seminary decide whether an applicant is homosexual ? So is one incident in the past, made possible by excessive alcohol consumption, sufficient to disqualify him ?

Once again, a guy who has gay sex because he’s bored is gay in the first place, not straight. If what you say is true then the guys who weren’t able to pick up a woman at the bar would be taking other guys home instead all the time.

It’s like the other argument that priests abused boys not because they were gay but because boys were handy. No, they preferred males.

It belies the very idea of there being something objectively called heterosexual or homosexual. Not buying it.

Oh and the New York Times has a vested interest in normalizing homosexuality. I take what they say with a very large grain of salt.

By your logic, is a man with homosexuel attractions, who has sex with a woman, straight ?

The issue is that the act is not always in accordance with the underlying attraction. There are numbers of homosexual persons out there, who are married and have children. What are they ?

How do you know about abusers that they preferred males ? The inference you draw is from the outcome and the claim that the act has to be done according to underlying attraction.
Since there are sufficient cases out there, where is this not true (Marriages, Prisons), how can you keep up your argument ?

I am not disputing the fact that there are homosexual and heterosexual attractions, I am disputing that you can deduce the underlying attraction from the actual act.
Sexual acting out is a choice, so sexual attraction might be a constraint on what is enjoyed but not on what can be done. 

By your logic, is a man with homosexuel attractions, who has sex with a woman, straight ?

No, you are displaying faulty logic. Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not two sides of the same coin. Homosexuality is a disorder, a perversion of the normalcy that is heterosexuality. It goes right along with the fallacy of bisexuality. You can’t be a “little” gay. You either are gay or you’re not, just like you’re either chaste or not. You can’t be a “little” chaste either.

How do you know about abusers that they preferred males ?

Because most of these guys were not in exclusively all-male environments. Because most of them went after adolescent teen males (which is defined a ephebophilia, a form of homosexuality, not pedophilia). Prisons are a whole other special case based on the perversions present and the unique mental health problems of guys likely to end up there.

I’m no psychologist but I’ve read enough material by doctors who’ve worked in prisons to know that you can’t extrapolate from prison to the rest of the world.

The question is not whether homosexuality is an disorder (a notion I have no problem with), the issue is how to determine whether somebody is homosexual.

You argue, that a single act, a single choice, even made under circumstances which inhibit clear judgement (like being drunk), is sufficient evidence to determine the underlying attraction.

So if I understand you right, you are saying that somebody with this disorder can make the choice to have sex with either gender, whereas somebody without this disorder cannot make this choice (or at least will never make this choice)?

I don’t believe that sexual attraction is the sole determinant for the type of sexual action humans choose, there seem to be other factors influencing this decision, like excercising of power, the excitement of the new or the forbidden and others.

I’m telling you that a normal heterosexual male is not going to have sex with another man willingly under any circumstances. If a man has sex with another man, even with impaired judgment, it means there’s an underlying problem. He may not be full-on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy homosexual, but he’s got issues he needs to deal with and the seminary isn’t the place for him.

Flo is right.  You’re just wrong on this one, Dom.  Read what Kevin Miller and Greg Popcak have written on their blog, if you haven’t already.  Sexuality isn’t always as rigidly black-and-white as you would have it; the normality and morality of it are separate issues.

Sexuality may not be rigidly black-and-white in the world, but it should be in the seminary.  Hopefully it will be soon.

I went to Mizzou in my younger days, been to many a beer bust, and I *never* heard of a heterosexual male that got amorous with guys due to inebriation, not ever. 

If a guy has sexuality that’s too far down on one end of the “spectrum”, maybe that guy will have a disordered moment.  But then that guy prolly shouldn’t be a priest. 

“Once again, a guy who has gay sex because he’s bored is gay in the first place, not straight”

That’s just silly, Dom.  The British navy was RAMPANT with homosexuals who wouldn’t touch a man under ordinary circumstances.  So are our jails. 

Homosexuality is a perversion, not an identity.  Some of us would not engage in certain perversions under ANY circumstances.  College students who are bored with repeated sexual conquests of women sometimes engage in homosexual acts.  Some of us are beset by a particular perversion.  Some of us titilate ourselves with increasingly bizarre perversions. 

I have been hoping for years that the Vatican would crack down on homosexuals in the seminary; they are a terrific force for evil.  I think disgust and outrage at homosexual acts is healthy and should be encouraged.  But the idea that anyone who has ever had a passing homosexual fantasy is a homosexual is absurd. 

Don’t put words in my mouth. I never said anyone with a homosexual “fantasy” is homosexual.

The point is that if you engage in homosexual activity, whether drunk, sober, or bored, you have veered into a perversion and disorder that renders you unfit for the seminary. The problem already exists in your mind.

And I reject the notion that all men are homosexuals under the right circumstances. It’s just not true.

Speaking of putting words in mouths, i don’t think anyone said that “all men” are homosexuals under the right circumstances.
I agree with Jeff and must add that, particularly today when homoseuality is glorified in the media, some teenage and college age kids will experiment now when in times past they were taught better, and followed norms of behavior better. Don’t underestimate what is being presented by the media (and being taught in schools) and the hold it has on kids If such a kid does experiment at some time and later becomes a moral and upright Christian I don’t think we should hold it against him.
Zita- so the fact that you never heard about it means that it doesn’t occur?  I can assure you it does. I suspect that some of your guy friends may have experimented and simply never told you or anyone else about it.  And yet they are probably normal heterosexually-functioning men today.

The plain implication of the assertion that “hey, sailors did it” and “hey, prisoners do it,” is that “hey, it can happen to anyone,” otherwise why bring those cases up?

If such a kid does experiment at some time and later becomes a moral and upright Christian I don’t think we should hold it against him.

I don’t hold a person’s past sins against him if he’s repented. But it doesn’t mean he should be a priest.

Right.  Nor does it mean that he shoud not. Again, there is a spectrum- at one end is a practicing self-identified homosexual and at the other is someone who experimented, maybe even with disgust, in a one-time event.  I think rectors and vocation directors shoud use prudential judgment in deciding these matters, not a one-size-fits-all mentality.  And that’s basically what Fr. Wehner was saying.

And we see where allowing rectors and vocation directors to set up their own standards has gotten us: a priesthood with a significant percentage of practicing homosexuals.

This is why a bright line must be drawn. Is it an arbitrary line? Perhaps, but no one can say that they don’t know what the rule is.

In essence the prudential judgment has been abused, so the Pope has reserved that judgment to himself. Although in reality, this is not a new policy. It was defined by John XXIII back in the 1960s. The only difference is that now it’s going to be enforced.

Yes, I agree- prudential judgment has been abused. As freedom always is. We’ll see how the instruction reads after it is released.  I doubt if it will really clear the matter up since there probably won’t be a definition of what is meant by homosexual.  But now we are arguing in circles so I will leave the last word to you.

Oh- but before I go, let me add that the abuse of prudential judgment is a problem that lies at the feet of the bishops.  whenever they saw their rectors abusing it, they should have stopped it.  But many didn’t.  We’ll see what happens now.

Zita- so the fact that you never heard about it means that it doesn’t occur?  I can assure you it does

<snip>

Mr. Tucker, since I am not male, I consulted the most heterosexual male I know, my husband—who is orthodox Catholic and would not lie—he’s also a former college football player.  He was kind of incredulous at the theory you are promoting, and no, he never got drunk and wanted to “experiment” with guys.  He said if any of his friends did, he never heard about it. (and they blab a lot, I think he would have heard about it)

Guys that try disordered stuff when they are drunk, have it in their minds beforehand.  Doesn’t make them bad people, just not seminary material. IMO. 

Zita- I was leaving the last word to Dom, so I’ll reply to you.  I hate to break it to you, but self-reporting is notoriously unreliable.  I have known,  and know of, more than a few women who discovered that their extremely heterosexual husbands were secretly having homosexual activity on the sly.  If you are curious as to how I might know of such a thing, I am a physician and privy to many secrets.
Very few men would tell their friends about such a thing unless they had good reason to think that they were predisposed to look favorably on it.  So, it doesn’t surprise me in the least that your husband isn’t aware of it.