Chastity and celibacy
A priest who read the Boston Globe article on the gay seminarian who was ousted for his “outspoken” views had some comments to offer the reporter who wrote it. Since I don’t have a way to contact the priest (getting his remarks secondhand) and thus I don’t exactly have his permission to use his name, I will identify him only as Fr. Rich. His comments are salient, well considered, and an excellent reminder of the meaning of celibacy and chastity—two terms that are thrown about without much regard for what they really signify.
Celibacy is a dedication of the complete self to God in love and service to him and to the church. Such degree of dedication is to be so complete that it cannot include a spouse, since marriage is so great a commitment that the spouses are dedicated to each other in their mutual walk toward the Lord.
Chastity is the successful integration of one’s sexuality that is male or female, (never “gay”, “straight”, “transgendered” as the practicing or promoting homosexuals claim). One who claims a “gay” orientation is acknowledging an affective disorder, not from God, an immaturity in development according to Catholic teaching.
While many people (impossible to know how many) may have from time to time homosexual inclinations or an exclusive or predominant homosexual inclination, the sexual identity is male or female. The response to one’s sexual inclinations is to know where they lead one and how to manage them, to acknowledge what one feels but to exclude behaviors which are contrary to one’s male or female identity and certainly one’s Christian identity.
A seminarian who claims to be “gay” neither yet understands his sexual or Christian identity nor has acquired sufficient maturity for ministry if he is promoting this as a state of being. Priests who self identify as “gay” lead others to act out, to promote homosexuality as normal thus thwarting maturity in chastity in themselves and others.
This young man was not chaste (celibate) in thought, in speech, in his manhood, and apparently not moving toward maturity in sexuality. He was dismissed for unchaste behaviors which did not include genital acting out, but certainly conduct that was unchaste in other areas.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
The real problem with Voice of the Faithful
- Several bishops around the country have barred the group from meeting on church property, expressing concern about the group’s expressed desire to shape change, and about the appropriateness of a lay organization debating the future of the church without a bishop present.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Uh, oh for Cardinal Law
The judge overseeing most of the lawsuits against the Archdiocese of Boston slapped down its request that personnel records turned over to plaintiffs be sealed. While that was certainly humiliating (she used some harsh language), something else she said also raised the specter of problems for Cardinal Law.
- Judge Constance M. Sweeney wrote that, contrary to Law’s testimony, the records show that some priests who had molested children were given new parish assignments even though church officials had reason to believe the priests were continuing to abuse children.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
More on “What Would Jesus Drive?“
Rich Lowry talk about the new religious war—against SUVs and slams Bill Maher for good measure. And Brent Bozell notes that reporters don’t generally regard Jesus as an authority to be cited unless he can be used to prop up their liberal causes.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
The elephant in the sacristy again
Jack Kenny writes a very politically incorrect column in the Manchester Union Leader on homosexuals in the priesthood. I think he’s generally right on, although I might disagree with some of his initial statements.
- A FRIEND, who is both a faithful Catholic and a staunch Republican, notes the American Catholic bishops have said going to war with Iraq under existing circumstances would be unjust and immoral.
- Absent the rigors of the faith, the priesthood might appeal as a refuge to people with myriad mental, emotional or sexual problems. There is, after all, no heavy lifting, save the Bible and a cross once in a while. Other than the scheduled Masses, confessions, baptisms, weddings, funerals and other odds and ends, the pastor of a local parish is pretty much free to make his own hours and set his own schedule.
There is, according to the Holy Scriptures, a moral law written in the hearts of all men, including those to whom the words of Scripture have not been revealed. “For the wrath of God,“ Paul wrote in his Epistle to the Romans, “is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.“
Surely that applies to those who, despite the moral law and thousands of years of Judaic and Christian teaching, both hold and teach that in matters sexual — that is, in matters pertaining to the sacred means by which the image of God is procreated in the world — “gay is just as good as straight.“
And does it not follow that men of a homosexual “orientation” are less than wholesome role models for young men who may some day be called to the priesthood? Even if the gay priest can suppress his unnatural desires, how effective will he be in counseling young Catholics not called to religious life to channel their own sexual drives toward marriage and procreation?
Here he hits the nail on the head. A man who embraces his vices and does not seek purity and holiness is going to have a very difficult time trying to represent the person of Christ to his parish. Why start out with two strikes? Why should the Church ordain a man with two strikes against him?
Kenny may be on to something with his thesis that much of the Scandal could be explained by a loss of faith among bishops and priests. Perhaps many of them have lost the zeal of their ordination and no longer see the supernatural nature of the Church. Perhaps many of them just go through the motions even as they act as if the Church were another manmade institution in which they try to manuever to thrive and survive.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Good Eats
Victor Lams gives links to web pages about my favorite cook show “Good Eats.“ There’s the Good Eats Fan Page and the show’s host, Alton Brown, has his own web site. At his site, I was able to buy the great salt cellar he uses on his show for only $15. Good deal. Thanks, Victor!
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Thanksgiving Myths
Just in for Thanksgiving, here’s a list of famous myths about Thanksgiving. I don’t have space to list the truth behind the stories, but you can read them at Kevin Orlin Johnson’s web site. (The server was down when I posted this.)
- Irritating Myth #1: The Plymouth colonists celebrated the first Thanksgiving in 1621 after their first winter killed nearly half of them. Gov. William Bradford decreed a feast for prayer and celebration.
- Irritating Myth #2: President George Washington named Nov. 26 a day of national thanksgiving and prayers for blessings.
- Irritating Myth #3: In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln declared the last Thursday in November as “a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father.“
- Irritating Myth #4: In 1941, Congress proclaimed the fourth Thursday of November as the official federal holiday to give thanks.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
On the depositions
I’d like to sound one note of caution to those reading the public depositions in the Archdiocese of Boston lawsuits. Remember that a deposition is not court testimony in that the defense does not have an opportunity to present the other side of the case and that you’re only going to get the worst possible view of the witness. That said, it still doesn’t look good for Cardinal Law and the other bishops. Even if you put some of that testimony in the best possible light, it still looks and sounds bad.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Come out and you’re out
The Boston Globe reports on a gay seminarian who was booted from St. John’s Seminary. The article gets it wrong, but who can blame the reporter since what he often gets is a mush of Church teaching.
Here’s what happened. An openly gay seminarian gets dismissed from the seminary because he won’t stop talking about homosexuality and specifically, his homosexuality. He claims that it is discrimination, that if one is simply a discreet and closeted homosexual there are no repercussions. To back up his argument, he says he knows of two seminarians who had sex in department store dressing room, even though he says he has no evidence.
This is what the reporter had to say: “According to Catholic teaching, homosexuality by itself is not considered a sin, although homosexual acts are.“ True enough as it goes, but it fails to include the part about homosexuality itself being a disorder and an inclination to sin that should be rooted out. It is not enough, as the article claims the Church allows, for the homosexual to remain celibate yet gay. The call to holiness demands a rooting out of inclinations to sin in addition to sin itself. A heterosexual man must not lust after women, a thief shouldn’t fantasize about the best way to rob a bank, and so on.
So what did the seminarian’s sponsor, the Archdiocese of Hartford, have to say?
- Seminarians must be ‘'able to live within the community structure and allow that structure to function in the way it is intended to function without creating a disruption by being outspoken on particular issues,‘’ said Monsignor Gerard G. Schmitz, vocation director for the Hartford Archdiocese.
- The Rev. Christopher J. Coyne, a Boston Archdiocese spokesman and St. John’s faculty member, ... said, ‘'To enter into a Catholic seminary and continuously push an agenda that is not in keeping with the church’s teaching on sexual orientation is problematic.‘’
It’s a little better, but it still doesn’t speak to the individual’s own orientation. It’s about outspokenness.
- “A man who is same-sex oriented can be ordained as long as he understands and is accepting of the promise of celibacy as the church understands it,‘’ Coyne said. ‘'The judgment call is not based on whether a man is gay or not. The judgment call is whether or not a man is committed to a celibate lifestyle and all that entails.‘’
Okay, that one bothers me. It is a capitulation to homosexuality, to concupiscence. If a seminarian walks around lusting after women all day, is he suitable for ordination. How about if he lusts after children, even if he is “committed to a celibate lifestyle”?
Of course, the seminarian we learn has more problems with Church teaching that just homosexuality.
- According to Meehan, church officials have officially said he was expelled due to differences of opinion over church teachings. ... Also, at a church gathering in Hartford, he was critical of the seminary for teaching that homosexuality is a moral choice and for discouraging discussions about ordination of women.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Accusations against Fr. Jozo
I’ve read the article in The Wanderer alleging that Fr. Jozo Zovko, the Franciscan priest from Medjugorje, has been suspended from ministry because of accusations of sex abuse and that despite this he is on a speaking tour of the US. The credibility of the accusations took a hit, in my view, when the article claimed that Fr. Jozo was suspended by his provincial in Bosnia, when I have seen a copy of a recent letter from his provincial stating that he is a Franciscan in good standing with no restrictions on his ministry. There were also some other claims about things going on in Medjugorje that I have a hard time believing. While I’ve never been there, I know many, many people who have and none of them have reported the lurid scenes that are alleged to have taken place. What I do know is that more than a few people who have had major faith experiences there and because of the place—miraculous healings, radical conversions, and the like.
Just as some claim that there is a major industry fleecing Medjugorje pilgrim-tourists, there is also a small cadre of folks with a very strong animus against the place as well. (I’m not sure why.) That said, I take the accusations against Fr. Jozo with a very large grain of salt, realizing I still don’t have the whole picture. Take from this what you will.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Throw the stones
A priest in New Hampshire resigned from his parish after acknowledging he had a “relationship” with legally minor girl some years ago. That’s the right for him and the diocese to do and his letter explaining the situation was kind of creepy. He said he “loved” the girl, who the diocese would only says was under 18 at the time, and wanted to marry her but couldn’t leave the priesthood. Okay, but the reactions of some parents was a little over the top.
But several parents who came to pick up their children said more. “I would never have expected this. This is the man who baptized my children, did their First Communions,“ said one mother of two, who did not want her name used. “This is the man who came to my house when my son was born, and talked about baptism.“
“I’m betrayed and I’m angry,“ she said. “I’m trying to teach my kids the difference between right and wrong. Do I really want him to go through with making his First Confession? What does he have to confess at (the age of) 10?“
Uppermost in her mind was a meeting Haller conducted just last weekend for the parents of children who will be receiving the sacrament. “He talked about what is a sin and what isn’t,“ she recalled bitterly.
Do people really expect priests to be sinless? Can someone only talk about sin if they themselves are sinless? Just because the priest had sinned—greatly—in the past doesn’t mean he can’t teach the truth now. St. Paul murdered Christians before his conversion! Are we then to discount his epistles?
As for the incredible question “What does he have to confess at (the age of) 10?“ , I hope she’s not trying to tell the newspaper’s readers that her son is perfect, that he never lies, throws tantrums, fights with his siblings, etc. Sure, he may not be guilty of mortal sin, but the point of confession at that age is to get into a habit of moral self-examination that leads to seeking reconciliation with God.
The fact is that the woman, along with so many others shocked by the Scandal, is responding based on emotion—mostly anger—and not reasoning or logic. It’s important that we not let our righteous anger overpower our God-given critical thinking and heart of forgiveness and mercy.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
What lengths for punishment?
The Crosiers religious order in Minnesota is under fire because they did not reveal the extent of sex abuse at a prep school and parish. This was the interesting piece of the story:
- Parish leaders are scheduled to meet in a mediation and conciliation session with the Crosiers early next month to address concerns that developed after parishioners learned that a Crosier brother who admitted to sexual abuse in the 1980s at their prep school in Onamia, Minn., was worshipping at the church. ... They also haven’t disclosed the whereabouts of Brother Gregory Madigan, who the Crosiers say admitted to molesting teenage boys in the mid-1980s at the Onamia prep school. The Crosiers moved Madigan to their Shoreview headquarters two years ago without telling neighbors or lay leaders at the St. Odilia church and school next door. Earlier this year, after revealing he had been living in Shoreview, the order moved Madigan to an undisclosed location.
On the one hand, I can understand parents wanting to know about an alleged child molester in their midst, but it seems the guy wasn’t in the parish as a religious brother. So what do we do? Should we, can we tell child molesters that they can’t worship in our churches, even if they are not involved in any ministries? Can we tell them that they are not allowed in our pew at Mass? How far should we go in rooting out the sin? If so, what about other sins? Which one of us has never committed a mortal sin? Should we be shunned as well?
I’m not saying the guy should be allowed to live in the rectory and wear a habit, but if all he’s doing is living in the area and registered as a sex offender—if there is a registry in the state—then what else can we morally do? Shouldn’t he have access to the sacrements too?
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Goodbye Garry
Once again Garry Wills demonstrates why his book should have its title shuffled and be called “Why Am I Catholic?“ [http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/24/books/review/24WILLST.html?ex=1039115718&ei]He has a new op-ed in the New York Times[/url] that cites a sociological study of the declining numbers of priests and concludes therefore that married and women priests are inevitable. Yeah, I’m trying to figure it out, too.
Even Cardinal Roger “Rog Mahal” Mahony of Los Angeles got it right back in 1990 when he dismissed the report by saying that “our future is shaped by God’s design for His Church—not by sociologists.“ Wills responds by showing how the number of priests declined in Los Angeles even faster than the study had predicted. Look Garry, the cardinal wasn’t denying the decline, but he was saying that as God wills it, so shall we go. If we get down to one parish priest for every 10,000 Catholics then so be it. Going to Mass won’t be as convenient—you may have to drive further and pack them in tighter, but then that’s what a lot of Catholics have had to endure for a long time. You didn’t see the Church changing her doctrines then.
The study uses models of how secular institutions respond to crisis to predict how the Church will respond to “a world environment that has altered many of the assumptions on which the celibate priesthood was based.“ Again, it’s a profoundly non-spiritual outlook that puts faith in the works of our hands and minds rather than the mercy and will of God.The crux of the study, which Wills wholeheartedly endorses, is the end of normative celibacy and the ordination of women within three or four generations. Safe bet since they won’t be around to see if they’re wrong.
The thing that Garry and the sociologists don’t take into account is the Lord’s promise. If the Church can speak definitively about her doctrine—as she did when the Pope declared the doctrine of the male priesthood—and be wrong, then the survival of the whole institution is in question. For, if error can exist in the fundamentals, then the gates of hell can prevail and the promises of God are dust. In such a world, it wouldn’t matter how many priests we have because the sacrifices of their altars would be play-acting and foolishness.
Thank God, that isn’t possible. Yes, we may soon have too few priests for our liking—we’re probably there now—but it’s not the end of the world, or the Church.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
The Wanderer and Fr. Jozo
Reader John mentioned in the blog about Bosnian priest Fr. Jozo Zovko that there is an article about him in the Nov 14 issue of The Wanderer. As I don’t receive the newspaper and don’t have anybody nearby who does, can someone summarize what it says? Is Fr. Jozo accused of sexual misconduct as the Boston Herald article said?
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Anniversary
Today is the 39th anniversary of the assassination of JFK and the 38th anniversary of the media’s commemoration of it. I don’t mean to sound cold-hearted, but how long will we have to endure interminable tales from baby boomers recalling where they were when they heard the news? I just wonder if Americans in the 19th century spent so much time eulogizing Abraham Lincoln for decades after his death. But then it’s not really about JFK’s death or Lincoln’s death, it’s about Boomer self-absorption, as if they were the only generation to endure upheaval or tragedy.
(0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Copyright © 2002-2006
Domenico Bettinelli, Jr.
All Rights Reserved.