It’s a very rare day when I agree so wholeheartedly with an editorial in the National Catholic Reporter. This one deals with the Scandal revelations in Philadelphia via the district attorney and grand jury. They detail the apalling abuse of children and of power we became so familiar with in Boston, and then ask where do we go from here?
Of what use are we as a believing community if we canmment_author_url>
“What Law and other bishops have done is practice the very thor_IP>188.8.131.52
2005-10-07 17:54:14 2005-10-07 21:54:14 <![CDATA[
While the editors of NCR and I would likely differ on answers to the liturgical questions or the moral questions or the social justice questions they propose, I think we both agree that arguing over those questions should take a back seat to the very real problem of the scandal of priestly and episcopal malfeasance.
No, abortion (one of the “social issues”) the respect shown to the Blessed Sacrament (the One us “believing people”—sheesh, what a phrase—know to be God) and the mucking around with the Word of God to make sure Modern Mary and Adam and Steve aren’t feeling “left out” should certainly not take a back seat to the Scandal. I suggest, as I think others have, that these very things made the Scandal inevitable.
Who cares what…we say about the unborn or the poor or anything else in our moralizing agenda if we canreator>
Once again, in another article, a “senior Vatican official” says the document on homosexual seminarians will not be a blanket ban
An upcoming church document does not decree a sweeping ban on gays in seminaries, allowing those who have lived chastely for at least three years to become priests, a senior Vatican official said Friday.
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the Vatican document has not yet been released, confirmed a report in the leading Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera that men who publicly show their homosexuality and those who reveal an attraction to the gay lifestyle should be refused admission to the clergy.
It’s good to take such reports with a grain of salt. A couple years ago, when news of this document started circulating, we had the same reports that it would be a blanket ban, and then that it wouldn’t be. According to sources in Rome, the intent was to poison the well and create such controversy that the men at the top would be dissuaded from publishing it right away and return it for further review and discussion. That may be the intent of today’s leaks to John Allen and Victor Simpson. I’m not saying that these reports aren’t true, but that we shouldn’t go jumping off any bridges over it until we see what it actually says. Then you can jump all you want.