« Inner Circle | Main | Absolutely, Positively Scariest Letter of the Day »
December 21, 2003
Chicago Grumblings
Priests annoyed with Church stance towards homosexuality
The group singled out Vatican documents that use language referring to homosexual acts and gay marriage as "intrinsically disordered," "a troubling moral and social phenomenon" and "harmful to the proper development of society." Such language is driving gays from the church, the pastors said.Cardinal Francis George received a copy of the letter Friday and issued what he acknowledged was a rare response.
"The church speaks, in moral and doctrinal issues, a philosophical and theological language in a society that understands, at best, only psychological and political terms," George wrote in a letter to the pastors."Our language is exact, but it does not help us in welcoming men and women of homosexual orientation," he wrote. "It can seem lacking in respect. This is a pastoral problem and a source of anxiety for me as it is for you. It would be good to discuss together."
But George went on to say that pastors must "mediate the tension between welcoming people and calling them to change."
If "you cannot resolve that tension between welcoming people as they are and still calling them to leave their sinfulness and become saints, or if you yourself do not accept the Church's moral teaching on the moral use of the gift of sexuality, it would be all the more important for us to talk," he wrote.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/323895
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Chicago Grumblings:
Comments
How nice of His Eminence to want to "talk" about the issue/problems of homosexuals as it relates to the Church faithful and to pastors who have parishes in communities with many gay residents. As my late mother used to say, "talk is cheap." But then she used to call priests "wimps" to their face. But Cardinal George, juggling this crazy archdiocese, is welcome to "talk". I have other problems in my parish that does not host many gays...the Pax Christi scurrilous and libelous attack on the United States Government comparing it to Herod's slaughter of the Holy Innocents. Thanks to Chicago's ever heterodox 8th Day Center for Justice where the Passionists and Sisters of Saint Joseph, TOSF both belong...and are my parish's pastor and associate, we had the surprise of finding out that President Bush and Herod the Great are related by action.
Posted by: John Hetman at Dec 22, 2003 1:28:41 AM
Talk, talk, talk. Ask RCF's Steve Brady how useful Cardinal George's willingness to "dialogue" is when confronted repeatedly with evidence of obstinate and deeply destructive activities by gay priests, and even a gay bishop, under his authority. It sounds pastoral on the surface, until you realize how often the cardinal has been told about what's really going on, and how little he's done about it. It would appear that the "pastoral" attempts at dialogue are, by this point, not the words of a wise shepherd of souls, but the weasel words of an ecclesial bureaucrat who sees his job as not leading the people of God to salvation, but as a politician and manager of factions within a sprawling and contentious organization.
I'd love it if somebody could talk me out of this view. Don't cite what Cardinal George has said; cite what he has done. Talk is the cheapest thing going with the episcopal class.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Dec 22, 2003 6:22:46 AM
Granted that Cardinal George inherited a fine collection of "diversity hounds", yet, there comes a point when one must put up or ...well, you know.
His inability to rid Chicago of the homosexual plague is slowly but surely leaving the impression on even the most indulgent observers of the Chicago scene that the good Cardinal is either part of the problem or cannot think of a solution. Either way his goose is getting cooked.
It would send a very pointed message to fire these renegade priests. They are not doing any good for the Church. But he probably wont. I guess, he is part of the problem.
Posted by: John at Dec 22, 2003 7:04:28 AM
Well, John, maybe the next pope can find the final sollution to the homosexual question. The current pope is simply too feeble. So you'll have to settle for the yearly Advent blood libel.
Merry Christmas.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 22, 2003 8:52:59 AM
I'd like to know which priests signed the letter. I would know a bunch of parishes to avoid.
Posted by: Karl at Dec 22, 2003 9:12:49 AM
I found a link to the actual letter. Go here.
Posted by: Karl at Dec 22, 2003 9:25:19 AM
The amazing thing about the Bush=Herod view is that Bush recently signed the anti-partial birth abortion law, the first chink in the armor of Roe v. Wade. He also reversed the Clinton policies related to abortion and the military, and he took a lot of heat for doing that from the very people that tend to be aligned with Pax Christi on all sorts of controversial issues.
Cardinal Martino represented the Vatican at the UN, especially in abortion related disputes. The Bush administration, you would think, would have earned respect, even a sense of camaraderie in the face of the "More abortions! It is a human right! Abortion solves problems!" attitude that permeates the U.N.
But Cardinal Martino--who has begun to morph into the Peter Lorre of Catholicism in my eyes--likened Bush to hard-hearted Pharaoh because of the Iraq war. Amenhotepbush the First, I guess, carrying the Iraqi people off to another land, enslaving them, and forcing them to work for him for years before allowing them to go home.
Nobody has yet suggested America is The Great Satan, so I guess we have room to work with these folks. If I were Cardinal George I believe I would work some of those priests right on down the road, hehehehe....
Posted by: George Lee at Dec 22, 2003 9:49:16 AM
So, I suppose it would be better for these preists to be secretive about their concerns rather than open with them so they can be addressed.
These priests are raising a legitimate pastoral problem. It is extraordinarily difficult to bring those who identify themselves as gay into the Church and call them to chaste behavior when the language we use keep them out in the first place.
Maybe you don't see that as a problem, and would rather keep them out, but I think we ought to have a better answer to this problem than "shut up" or firing those who dare give voice to their concerns.
And I'm not saying the answer has to be accomodation to the gays point of view and telling them they're OK. It could be being clearer about what the Church teaches. It could be just accepting this obstacle and dealing with it.
But this is a real problem. I hope Cdl. George has better answers than what I'm seeing in this comment box.
Posted by: John McG at Dec 22, 2003 10:11:58 AM
Rod,
How the hell do we know what the Cardinal is or isn't doing? We cannot see his actions behind the scenes. That Cardinal George emphasizes his role as a symbol of unity as a bishop is not news to any of us. But the guy is in an extremely untenable position. He needs to staff parishes. He needs to lead souls to salvation. He has priests who are failing to do that and in fact are likely leading people to confusion. He's got an incredible responsibility. But to me so much of the views on things like this is driven by a notion of the priesthood as a job or function. You don't just fire priests. And we know that George is not one of the bad guys. He deserves more respect than this. I am not even writing coherently I am so angry by such a flip and easy criticism.
Posted by: Conor Dugan at Dec 22, 2003 10:15:13 AM
I agree with Conor. We don't know know what George is doing, and we don't really know the practical constraints under which he operates. We do, however, have plenty of evidence that he is God's servant doing his earnest best, even if it involves pastoral decisions that can be appropriately second-guessed. One of the emblems of maturity is an ability to distinguish friend from foe. George is a friend, and deserves prayer, support and encouragement; not snarky criticism.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Dec 22, 2003 10:42:24 AM
I granted to Cardinal George that he inherited a tough problem. The sainted Cardinal Bernardin left a collection of individuals in place who telegraphed their displeasure with Cardinal George even before he took up his new post in Chicago.
As for you cant just fire priests, well, some of those now in parishes--not just in Chicago-- are not priest's of Jesus Christ. They openly teach heresy. Why should they be tolarated? Plenty of orthodox priest are persecuted by their liberal bishops, orthodox seminarians are kick out of seminaries, so what is it about homosexual priests that makes them untouchable?
Cardinal George has a staffing problem? If he had fired renegade priests 5 years ago about now he would have a large crop of new priests graduating to fill the shortage. As it is, he just has a problem.
By the way, I do not think we have trouble bringing homosexuals into the church. Our seminaries are full of them.
Posted by: John at Dec 22, 2003 10:47:12 AM
John,
Your point is a fair one, but I don't see how it applies to the letter. The words used by the Church to describe homosexual conduct are not vile, abusive, toxic or violent at all. Instead, the Church continues to embrace all sinners without embracing sin. Just because I'm prone to avarice or lust does not mean that I am somehow unwelcomed if the Church unequivically condemns greed and adultury. The truth of the matter is that the signators of the letter don't really think that homosexual behavior is seriously sinful, which is why they view the Church's moral charactorizations of such behavior as inappropriate.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Dec 22, 2003 10:51:00 AM
My last post was in response to John McG.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Dec 22, 2003 10:52:36 AM
I did not comment on the priest's statement that the words used are toxic or vile because such a statement, in my view, is not worthy of serious comment. Although, Cardinal Gerge's acceptance that there is a "language" problem smacks of political thinking or worse. It is also fair to posit that these priests are not altogether responsible since their seminary education told them that homosexual behavior was good and worthy of affirmation. So this is where we are.
Finally, I have no problem embracing the sinner being one myself. However, I have a problem about setting up a special class of sinners who must be accomodated with new language and hence new theology.
Posted by: John at Dec 22, 2003 11:01:58 AM
The responsibilities of a Bishop are obviously more substantial than those of us authoring (or commenting in) blogs. The excerpt from the Cardinal's letter makes good sense to me in that light. The fact that some/many of these priests have incorrectly adopted the views of the world doesn't remove the ontological mark of their ordination on their soul. They are "priests forever...." How far should a Bishop be willing to go to bring his priests back to the truth? I would say farther than many of the commenters would suggest.
Posted by: John at Dec 22, 2003 11:12:12 AM
The letter is sickening and disheartening. Catholic priests characterizing the constant teaching of the Church on homosexuality as “…vile and toxic language”, and at the same time hypocritically citing the Church’s affirmation of the dignity of the human person.
My profound apologies to Rod Dreher for thinking he was getting carried away with his passionate criticism of the Bishops’ inaction. Evidently Rod’s assessment is well justified as evidenced by the sheer arrogance of the letter, and Cardinal George’s polite reply. At the very least these cynical hypocrites should have been suspended immediately.
Posted by: TomM at Dec 22, 2003 11:13:32 AM
Perhaps one could label Cardinal George's letter as prudent not political. Prudence is a virtue that is too often lacking in many. We shouldn't lable prudence weakness.
Posted by: Conor Dugan at Dec 22, 2003 11:21:06 AM
Regarding the comment about staffing problems and seminarians in Chicago. In '03 Cardinal George ordained 15-the largest class in the U.S. My parish in the archdiocese, St. John Vianney, has ordained 4 in the past few years and we currently have 4-5 in the seminaries.
Cardinal George is a breath of fresh air in Chicago. Bernadin era people are slowly getting filtered out of the hierarchy. Maybe people like Rod fantasize about a Bruskewiecz type coming into town and shitcanning a lot of people, but if that were to happen I can guarantee the results: multiple parish closings, 80% of laity bolting, revenues down the tubes(including funding for critical social services).
I find it difficult to stomach the freaks in the archdiocese, but I truly believe George is doing the right thing- if too slowly for my own taste.
Posted by: ken at Dec 22, 2003 11:31:46 AM
I think the commentors' response to the words "vile and toxic" is an interesting parallel to how a gay person would respond to words like "intrinsically disordered".
If you're not seeing through the eyes of faith, not listening with charity, it's easy to dismiss what someone is saying based on these hot button words. Just ask Vice President "Empire" Cheney, or Cardinal "Cow" Martino.
What I think the priests are saying by using the words "toxic" is that words like "intrinsically disordered" poison their efforts to lead gay people to chastity.
Now, I agree that that's more a problem with the audience's attitude than with the language the Church chooses. If anyone has ideas about changing those attitudes, I'd like to hear them.
In the meantime, the priests, (and us) are faced with the challenge of bridging this disconnect. A charitable reading of the priest's letter is that they were asking for help with this challenge.
And that's why I don't see the letter is an altogether bad thing, because it gives Cdl. George an opportunity to tell us how we should go about doing it, and all of us an opportunity to discuss it. It would be better than having them secretly devise their own solutions.
I don't think Cdl. George's response took full advantage of this opportunity; maybe we can do better.
Posted by: John McG at Dec 22, 2003 11:46:41 AM
I would define prudence as having the courage to say and do something even when they words and actions are not popular. The political definition may be different, as in covering ones rear is prudent when....
Cardinal george has done many good things for the Church mostly by his words. He has tried to do a lot for liturgical reform. However, his reforms in Chicago are proceeding at a glacial pace at best.
The priests' letters are difficult to view with charity because they talk as hypocrites. You know, Jesus had no patients with those folks at all either.
Posted by: John at Dec 22, 2003 11:59:57 AM
I was potentially sympathetic to the priests for a while, because I do believe that some of the Church's theological language might be *in this time and place* a pastoral block in some cases given the slightly different meanings those same words have in secular society (disordered, evil, e.g.). And the Cardinal himself says as much. Approached in the right spirit, that's a perfectly legitimate topic between priests and their bishop.
But after reading the letter, all I can say is the Cardinal George's response comes across much better. I'd want him to order those priests burned at the stake.
If that's not an option, then the line "if you yourself do not accept the Church's moral teaching on the moral use of the gift of sexuality, it would be all the more important for us to talk" comes across as a not-so-veiled threat. Maybe he won't follow through, but you have to start there and not with summary defrocking.
The very concept of a jointly-signed open letter is dubiously anti-authority, a holdover from a 60s protest. But even apart from the form, the content of this letter is dissent, plain and simple.
I mean ... "disturbed by the ... content of documents ... from the Vatican"; "violent and abusive language"; "the life journey in faith is unique and sacred, including the personal integration of sexuality and spirituality"; "We root ourselves in the U.S. Bishops’ statement 'Always Our Children'.”; "ministering to and with our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters is mutually beneficial ... Pre-judging where any believer’s journey will take them is inappropriate"; "Examples from the most recent Vatican document show all too clearly the demonization of these children of God"; "this most recent series of attacks has forced [many gay and lesbian Catholics], out of self-respect and self-love, to withdraw"; "a Church they experience as abusive"; "We recognize the blessings of countless homosexuals in a variety of relationships" ...
... and just too, too many other phrases and sentences for me to cite without severe abuse of Mme. Welborn's bandwidth. Dale ... we need a good fisking. Where are you?
Posted by: Victor Morton at Dec 22, 2003 12:34:03 PM
Mmm-hmm. Funny how "prudence" has been cited since forever by bishops who lacked the spine to do the right thing. Give the cardinals and the bishops all the excuses you care to. You see where that has gotten us. Faithful orthodox Catholics have been played by fools by so many of these bishops. They say what they know we want to hear, and they rely on the "well, it could be worse" sentiment to protect them from the harsh judgments of Catholic laypeople who want to know why they can't simply act as Christian men.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Dec 22, 2003 12:48:43 PM
My point Rod is that Cardinal George is acting like a Christian man. I suppose that is where we disagree.
Posted by: Conor Dugan at Dec 22, 2003 12:52:28 PM
I used to volunteer for the children's liturgy at one of the parishes that was signed onto this letter. Two little girls who participated in the class were the adopted daughters of a very obviously lesbian couple. The pastor always said that particular mass (which had a very small attendance) and would give the mothers communion every week. As a practical question, what should the pastor do in this situation? To be honest, I kind of struggled with this question specifically because there are two very young children involved.
Posted by: Lee at Dec 22, 2003 12:52:46 PM
When Cardinal George took over the Chicago archdiocese in 97, he took over a archdiocese that had been ruled for 16 years by Cdl. Bernadin, and another 17 years before that by Cdl. Cody. While Cdl. Cody was by many considerd a conservative, in reality he lost control of his archdiocese early on, so with more than 30 years of intense hetrodoxy in the archdiocese, Cdl. George had and still has his hands full. I read he has reformed teh archdiocean seminary, and he has give Traditional Catholics a safe haven as well not to mention their own religous order.
Posted by: John B at Dec 22, 2003 1:24:14 PM
Why don't we kick all heretics out of the Church? Historically heresy has lasted for shorter periods than schism. These priests may be guiding souls down a pathway of darkness, but if we toss them we risk losing many generations of souls.
Posted by: ken at Dec 22, 2003 1:33:49 PM
If Chicago parishes were any more welcoming and "warmer", we'd all be arrested for public indecency. And yet, during the last two years, Sunday mass attendance along with financial support is rampant throughout the Archdiocese. My own Passionist pastor has allowed a rock band and liturgical dancers with the net effect of a huge drop in contributions. Why not continue down the yellow brick road to Episcopalianism, bless the pets, consecrate "gay" adulterous bishops, and leave the churches as monuments to a dead faith? I am sure that most of the media would applaud and VOTF could disband.
Posted by: John Hetman at Dec 22, 2003 1:35:52 PM
One wonders why these priests set their sights so low - why not an "Open Letter to God" complaining about all of that violent and abusive language in the Scriptures about homosexual acts?
Having the dubious honor of being a member of one of the parishes at the center of this episode, I'll try to find out.
Posted by: Joe at Dec 22, 2003 2:19:10 PM
John, why not join the others who have fled this parish and become involved in a parish that is lead by a faithful pastor? As you probably know the Chicago area does have a few. If you have chosen to stay and fight don't complain.
To put things in perspective, there are many people like myself who travel from the Joliet diocese to the archdiocese because it has a better product to offer and a good part of that does have to do with the man at the head of the archdiocese.
Posted by: ken at Dec 22, 2003 3:14:33 PM
I live in one of the parishes represented, and I don't mind too much the private lobbying or even public participation by the priests involved. I know, as certain as the sun will rise however, that I will hear a homily on Sunday about my pastor's personal problems with Church teachings, and the "heirarchy," and how some caricaturized conservative yelled at him. I just wish he wouldn't involve me (or the parish) in the personal drama of his life.
Posted by: Bill at Dec 22, 2003 3:35:09 PM
Parish shopping is tiresome and often results with the same grass growing in different fields. My family has belonged to this parish since 1957 so I have attachments to many neighbors, one priest and some staff members. I had "tried" other parishes in the area but they have their own problems.
Posted by: John Hetman at Dec 22, 2003 3:52:00 PM
Victor Morton writes:
The very concept of a jointly-signed open letter is dubiously anti-authority, a holdover from a 60s protest. But even apart from the form, the content of this letter is dissent, plain and simple.
Actually, it's a holdover from the 70's Victor--the 1770's.
Speaking of the 70's, I remember then the writings of another dissident were in vogue among conservatives. Now less than 30 years after the publication of the _Gulag Archipelago_, conservatives are denoucing the very idea of dissidence with as much irrational vigor as the Soviets denounced it when discussing Solzhenitsyn.
Most ironic of all is our dissident Polish Pope who has become the foremost enemy of dissidence itself.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 22, 2003 4:04:50 PM
Frank,
I am one of those conservatives who greatly admire Sozhenitsyn; when my pastor gets thrown into a concentration camp, gets tortured, starved, and has his health ruined for his so-called dissidence I will admit there is some similarity. Even as a metaphor, the comparison is terrible. Our pastor is lauded by the secular elite for his "speaking to truth" and does not suffer any obvious consequence except on blogs. He is voluntarily a member of the organization he is criticizing, taking the money and the considerable power as pastor conferred by that organization, while nuancing his message to the point of incomprehension. I would admire him more if he just resigned his parish and joined HIV ministry or some other necessary ministry.
Posted by: Bill at Dec 22, 2003 4:48:43 PM
I hope I am not the only one that is tired of all these open letters by priests to their bishop for this, that, or the other reason.
Contra to other people's thoughts, I think Cardinal George's response is a brilliant and shrewd one. These pastors are really not interested in having a "chat" with the Cardinal as such; the open letter is transparently a publicity stunt. Most priests that I know (whether liberal or not) are usually happy to keep the bishop and the chancery as far away as possible.
What Cardinal George did was to acknowledge something which most conservative Catholics do not acknowledge: that words like "intrinsically disordered" really are only meaningful to those few people involved in a theological/philisophical debate on the morality of homosexual acts and homosexual orientation or follow the debate exceptionally closely. To everyone else who is not closely schooled in Thomistic ethics, however, the terms are extremely confusing as to their purpose and scope. Most people seem to think that when the Church's teaches that a homosexual orientation "intrinsically disordered" it is a moral judgment or a psychiatric judgment against a person, but it isn't: it's really a philosophical judgment for an inclination. To explain what the Church teaches and why is as difficult (if not more so) than explaining the difference between "substance" and "accidents" to a modern semi-literate audience. From an apologetical standpoint, these terms are largely a dismal failure.
However, as Cardinal George knows, the pastors aren't really interested in this aspect of the question, but are instead interested in opening a free public debate on the teaching of the magisterium itself. In response, he says, "if this is what you are interested in talking about, we really DO need to have a discussion: presumably the kind of discussion that you don't want to have."
These pastors won't take up the Cardinal's offer, and that will be the last peep we will hear from these guys for awhile. They tried to bait Cardinal George, but he wisely didn't bite.
As time goes on, I like Cardinal George more and more, even if I disagree with some of his ruminations from time to time. If we could clone him, the Church would be in much better hands!
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Dec 22, 2003 5:18:15 PM
Frank, another significant difference between Solzhenitsyn and dissent by Catholic clergy is what they're dissenting against. Surely you don't suggest moral equivalence between the Soviet dictators and the Catholic Church heirarchy? In fact, Catholic clergy voluntarily participate in and align themselves with an organization which posits, as an article of faith, that its authority derives from a source higher than humanity.
Posted by: kyle at Dec 22, 2003 5:24:43 PM
Man, is it amazing how the blogosphere likes to take single instances and assume that they are the end all be all of action by bishops. Rod, when is the last time you stepped foot in the Archdiocese of Chicago or attended an event of the archdiocese or went to a parish of the archdiocese? Have you ever met with or talked with Cardinal George? I have to say I grow weary of the armchair quarterbacks who read an AP wire and feel they must comment.
If anyone thinks an Archbishop is going to write a scathing open letter back to a group of priests, no matter how wrong the priests might be, they really need to grow up. And I don't think the Cardinal was being political at all. He's absolutely correct that people don't understand the meaning behind the church's language on homosexuality and interpret phrases like "objectively disordered" and the sort in the most negative light. Saying that this is a pastoral problem isn't to say that the phrases must be changed but that we have to figure out how better to explain them and their true meaning. And I am confident that Cardinal George will follow through with his desire to "talk" to these priests.
Man, this is getting more attention in St. Blog's than it is in Chicago!
Posted by: JACK at Dec 22, 2003 5:35:08 PM
It is obvious that these priests reject the Church's teaching that homosexual behavior is morally wrong and that homosexual tendencies are intrinsically disordered. Why else would they single out this issue for their concern? Why are they not concerned that the Church is less than welcoming to theives or murderers by teaching that these actions are sins? It is clear that they believe that the Church is wrong in speaking out against homosexual "marriage" and the language used has nothing to do with it. They want the Church to "dialogue" with gays and lesbians. Well, why are we singling out only homosexuals for dialogue? Why not enter into dialogue with alcoholics, abortionists, drug dealers, and embezzlers? I don't think that the Church is terribly "welcoming" towards them, either, by these priests' standards.
Posted by: Stacey at Dec 22, 2003 5:37:42 PM
Bill,
By calling gays "intrinsically disordered" and making analogies with illness, the Church is medicalizing dissent. The CDF, in particular, has used the deprivation of the civil rights sick people for the common good as an analogy for how homosexuals should be treated in the larger society. Given that CDF was (and is) headed by a Hitler Youth alumnus when that statement was made, it's impossible to justify the assumption that the CDF didn't see the wider implications.
You may say that this makes no practical difference. Nevertheless, within my lifetime, the United States has run gulags for homosexuals, subjecting them to ect, psycho-surgery, castration, and nearly fatal drugs as corrective "therapy." The closest one to my home is the state hospital at Atascadero Californial. It's an institute for the criminally insane. The state put people there for being homosexual, often with little formal evidence of sexual activity. There as prisoners they were treated with anectine (purified curare) to arrest their breathing as a form of aversion therapy. It nearly killed them, but I'm sure it terrified them into doing whatever their captors wanted. These treatments continued into the 1970's.
Those priests have taken great risk. Their bishop can ruin them, by laicizing them and reducing them to homeless men if he so wishes.
These priests are very courageous.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 22, 2003 6:35:42 PM
Jack, Rod doesn't need to come to Chicago. W don't have a unique situation here.
Heresy and disobedience are pretty rife in the Church all across Western society. And it's pretty much the same issues but with a variation in the responses from the bishops: from strong to baby aspirin.
I have lived in Chicago for most of 62 years and have witnessed all the changes in the Church and been part of: A). The Liberal church for twenty odd years; and then B). The Authentic Church for the last 12 or so.
So I have worked with, talked with, and encountered every flake left of center field.
The Cardinal is an enigma. And I have mixed feelings about him, but place my home that the Holy Spirit is guiding him. After all, to whom was the letter addressed? Not me or you.
But these priests are self-important gadflies who could not deliver a decent homily if their mothers' lives depended upon it.
Posted by: John Hetman at Dec 22, 2003 6:41:28 PM
Frank wrote:
By calling gays "intrinsically disordered" ...
Bzzzzzt. Sorry. Nice try. Come again.
Posted by: Victor Morton at Dec 22, 2003 7:11:08 PM
Frank,
With all due respect I don't exactly follow your line of reasoning that the current Catholic Church's wording of its views on homosexuality are somehow related to the state's use of coercive measures 30 years ago and more. I will be happy to concede your point if the USA becomes a Catholic theocracy and controls the organs of state to enact this sort of thing. I will even concede your point if the NY Times stops publishing gay matrimonials or the "Queer Eye" gets canceled because of religious opposition. I am not aware of many priest being laicized for dissent alone;erhaps Charles Curran, and I am not sure he was actually laicized. Again, I will concede your point when priests in the Chicago archdiocese start getting laicized for these sort of things. Until then, I think it is rather unlikely, and my basic point remains. The priests who signed this letter will not face any severe consequence, and somehow equating them with gulag occupants is rhetorical excess.
Posted by: Bill at Dec 22, 2003 7:51:07 PM
Bill,
You seem like a reasonable man.
My point is that the language used by the Church has a historical context which is quite sinister, which is the point made by those priests.
And my point was not to equate those priests with prisoners in a gulag. I simply believe that any organization that sees dissent as _always_ wrong is an organization that fears truth. It's true of the old Soviet Union. It's true of pc-fascist cliques in Universities. It's true of gay political cliques in San Fransisco. It's true of the Church.
While we're talking about severe consequences, you might consider the silencing of Grammick and Nugent, a nun and a priest who ran a ministry for gay people but were silenced by Rome for NOT saying "intrinsically disordered" and "objectively evil" often enough.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 22, 2003 8:20:37 PM
Kyle writes:
>>Surely you don't suggest moral equivalence >>between the Soviet dictators and the Catholic >>Church heirarchy?
I do whistle "The Internationale" when reading some of the more overblown Catholic propaganda generated by the Vatican, especially Cdl. Ratzinger. But that's only because I see the RCC as a prototype of the international political party.
No, my point is that any organization that sees _all_ dissidence as morally wrong is afraid of the truth.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 22, 2003 8:30:35 PM
Yes, what happened to poor Sr. Grammick doesn't bear thinking about.
Her tongue torn out by Cardinal Ratzinger himself.
Well, in the spiritual sense.
OK, maybe not even that. But she was silenced. I guess.
In some way not readily discernable. After all, her sisters gave her a promotion just this year.
http://www.exceptionalmarriages.com/weblog/BlogDetail.asp?ID=10250
The horror. The horror.
Posted by: Dale Price at Dec 22, 2003 9:53:21 PM
Thank you Frank,
I have always thought I was reasonable, but it is nice to get it confirmed. I understand the general idea of historical perspective, as well as the specific point you and the Chicago priests were trying to make. I just think it is inaccurate and perhaps a little overwrought. I could just as easily say the rhetoric of the Vatican is validated by the HIV epidemic of the 80s and 90s. That is a historical perspective too, but it probably doesn't contribute much to the question of the Church and homosexuality.
Few Chicago Catholics would describe the doctrinal rigidity of the Archdiocese as on the same level as pc academia or the Soviet Union, in fact most would find that analogy bizarre. The problem is not that the Cardinal sees all dissidence as morally wrong, but that not even selected types of dissidence are thought to be morally wrong. My pastor gave us 2 or 3 homilies about how retrograde the new GIRM changes were. An associate stepped off the altar and looked up at the sky, daring a bolt of lightning to hit him, while mocking the new norms. I am afraid I don't credit them with the sometimes honourable title of "dissidents."
Posted by: Bill at Dec 22, 2003 10:11:16 PM
The priest are making a political move. The Pope is sick and old, the Cardinal, well, does not like confrontations. If the boys in the band responsible for the dissenting letter can break this diocese or get something from Cardinal George, they might be able to use that to beat other bishops over the head. Ecclesiastical terrorists, extortionists or whatever terms you like.
Posted by: John at Dec 22, 2003 10:25:57 PM
Very damn few of these bishops can stand confrontation, period. Like Fr. Wilson says, they're eunuchs ... but not for the Kingdom.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Dec 22, 2003 10:43:04 PM
Bill writes:
Few Chicago Catholics would describe the doctrinal rigidity of the Archdiocese as on the same level as pc academia or the Soviet Union, in fact most would find that analogy bizarre.
I really don't know about your diocese, but I would make that comparison to the current regime in the Vatican from the not-so-crypto-fascist Opus Deistas to the leftover Axis Cardinals to the senile Medieval Pope, it's a pathetic cast of characters.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 22, 2003 10:54:35 PM
Rod Dreher writes:
Very damn few of these bishops can stand confrontation, period.
But we can, can't we, Rod? :-)
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 22, 2003 10:56:54 PM
The Catechism clearly addresses the homosexuality issue , there is nothing any bishop or priest can say or do to change it now . I was thought the catchesim was a basis for what catholics believe. If I am wrong someone please tell me .
Posted by: Larry at Dec 23, 2003 12:05:48 AM
Larry writes:
The Catechism clearly addresses the homosexuality issue , there is nothing any bishop or priest can say or do to change it now . I was thought the catchesim was a basis for what catholics believe. If I am wrong someone please tell me .
Only too glad to help, Larry. The Catechism says that every instance of unjust discrimination against homosexuals must be eliminated. Yet, in all the years since that was written the Vatican hasn't found a single instance of such discrimination.
I can only conclude that not even those who wrote the Catechism actually believe all of it.
Hope this helps.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 23, 2003 12:47:55 AM
Dear Frank:
Your posts verge on the bizarre and paranoid. "Gays" have won hands-down the supreme award for being the most pampered victims' group that has ever existed. They are coddled, adulated, preached about warmly , compared to the Good Samaritan, etc., ad nauseum. About the only thing left is a Mt. Rushmore Memorial to Gays, Lesbians, Transthis and Transthat. When a young homosexual man is murdered in Wyoming, there is more coverage for a longer period of time than if an asteroid the size of Greenland hit the Earth. Yet, when an older woman in Chicago and a 13 year-old boy are brutually murdered by homosexuals, there is barely a peep.
The general tolerance of Americans is being taxed now beyond what any society will rightfully bear. The backlash is beginning to emerge out of a sense being being duped by a bunch of self-pitying, overinflated narcissists.
Posted by: John Hetman at Dec 23, 2003 1:09:13 AM
John,
I don't really care what you think. You're old and will be dead soon enough.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 23, 2003 1:43:06 AM
Of natural causes, of course.
And so will I.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 23, 2003 1:44:26 AM
John,
I apologize.
But the truth is I don't care about my own generation or those older than me.
If you can convince me to change my attitude because doing so will improve the lives of the generations after us, including those who happen to be homosexual rather than heterosexual, then I'm willing to do so.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 23, 2003 1:57:20 AM
John,
I apologize.
But the truth is I don't care about my own generation or those older than me.
If you can convince me to change my attitude because doing so will improve the lives of the generations after us, including those who happen to be homosexual rather than heterosexual, then I'm willing to do so.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 23, 2003 1:57:21 AM
If you want an example of Cdl Geroge's inaction,go to the web site of Chicago's Archdiocean Gay and Lesbian Outreach(AGLO) "ministry." And check out the bars.
Posted by: tonymixan at Dec 23, 2003 8:28:42 AM
Here, from Paul Likoudis' "Amchurch Comes Out," is something relevant about Cardinal George. Steve Brady of Roman Catholic Faithful had contacted George about Bp. Daniel Ryan of Springfield, who, alleged Brady, had been paying male prostitutes to service him (Brady's investigators had contacted several of them). Brady had already, in February 1997, held a press conference to accuse Ryan of homosexual misconduct, which Ryan denied. In December of that year, Brady scheduled a second press conference to reveal the new information provided by the hustlers. Likoudis writes:
Just days before the scheduled event, however, Brady was contacted by the Archdiocese of Chicago, now headed by Francis Cardinal George. During theat contact, Brady was asked to postpone the conference to give the Vatican some time to effect Ryan's resignation. Brady agreed to postpone the press conference for one month.
Cardinal George sent Jimmy Lago, executive director of the Catholic Conference of Illinois, a Bernardin appointee, to meet with Brady and determine what information Brady possessed.
"What was extremely puzzling," Brady recalled, "is that Lago did not want some of the information we had, claiming they had other sources for this information.
"I assume Lago discussed the matter with Cardinal George, because shortly thereafter I received a phone call from the cardinal, who asked us to remain silent. He promised us a 'relationship with the hierarchy' is we were obedient. I asked him what obedience meant. I was told, essentially, obedience means remaining silent, and to let the hierarchy work to remove Ryan -- but he couldn't promise anything. He made that very clear."
What a profile in courage. But here's more. When Brady uncovered the notorious St. Sebastian's Angels site (here's a Catholic World News report on the controversy), he didn't go public with it. He first contacted the nuncio in Washington, and every American cardinal, to ask them to do something about it. The only one who bothered to write back to Brady was Cardinal George, who faxed him a response saying he didn't want to view the site. Brady told CWN:
[T]then I had a phone conversation with him and told him how to access the site. He said he thought that it might be an occasion of sin if he looked at. That really bothered me. How can our moral leaders deal with stuff like this without looking at it?
Like I said, a real profile in courage, that Chicago cardinal. Too delicate to look at evidence of what these gay priests were actually doing, because then he would have been obliged to have done something about it.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Dec 23, 2003 9:01:45 AM
Frank,
Lesson in Catholic Moral Theology: sinful acts are intrinsically disordered. Homosexual acts are sinful acts. Therefore, they are disordered. As others pointed out, "intrinsically disordered" does not refer to the persons nor their psychological state.
Frank it would be unloving for the Church to tell practicing homosexuals that their actions are not sinful. In fact it would be true spiritual discrimination for the Church to do so. It would be saying, "you poor souls really don't have what it takes to follow Christ, you just aren't up to it, so we won't waste our time with giving you the chance to experience the joy of delighting in the Lord's commands." Jesus welcomed all sinners, but those who came to him, never left affirmed that their sins were "ok".
The Church needs to liken its treatment of homosexual sin to that of other sexual sins and make the case that it no more discriminates against those who commit homosexual sins than those who commit heterosexual sins. It calls sin, sin. If a person chooses to believe otherwise, it is a free country. There are other churches. Remarried divorcees without anullments are in similar circumstances. They cannot receive nor be in certain positions of employment that would infer eclessial approval of their public sin. Yet we do not have divorcee's lobbying the government for special protections or crying discrimination or foul. They understand that they have chosen not to accept what the Church teaches. Yet, the church still reaches out to them. They are welcome to come to mass. They just cannot receive. The Church should cut-off all this false red herring lobbying for a change in the fundamental beliefs in our religion. There is no Inquistion or Church sex police. A homosexual who believes that being a practicing homosexual is free to go to another church. They are also free to come and worship at a Catholic Church. Why they believe that they should be able to take away the freedom of the Church to hold what it has always held is beyond me (as is being done in Canada). That is called oppression and censorship in my book.
Ironically, the Church has consistently argued for respect for all human life from conception to natural death. While individuals have failed in this, the Church has held steadfast and almost alone. The Church has been at the forefront in loving caring for AIDS patients. The Church in recent history has been very supportive of efforts to battle hate crimes and civil discrimination against homosexuals. Unfortunately, the homosexual community cannot respect the right that the Church and its members have to believe differently regarding the sinfulness of homosexual acts. Adultery and fornication are rampant in our society. No one from these groups have their knickers in knots because the Church says that their actions are sinful. Why should homosexuals?
I do wish the Church would consider writing two documents -- one in Church-ese and one in average Jane and Joe-ese to prevent the kind of twisting of its message that has occured. Sometimes there is a cynical side of me that thinks that some Church officials would purposefully write documents in this kind of tone so as to cause a backlash.
Posted by: Therese at Dec 23, 2003 10:15:18 AM
Therese, the church isn't advocating the abolition of laws permitting divorce or recognizing the remarriage of divorced people. It isn't advocating the criminalization of birth control (not most of it, anyway). Nor does the church spend a lot of breath decrying the amount of premarital heterosexual sex that occurs among its members -- though, of course, it considers such relationships to be disordered. In short, the church ignores much sinful activity. What it chooses to ignore and what it chooses to go after in a public way -- this is what many of us find disturbing and frankly discriminatory. I've been reading this blog long enough to know that many people here would not mind if the church DID go after heterosexual sins in a more public way, so I am not accusing anyone here of hypocrisy. But it is worth bearing in mind that to the outside world, the appearance of heterosexual "favoritism" can seem very strong.
Posted by: Barbara at Dec 23, 2003 10:34:54 AM
Therese writes:
The Church in recent history has been very supportive of efforts to battle hate crimes and civil discrimination against homosexuals.
Therese, if you can provide any evidence that the orthodox Catholic church has done any of this, I'd be happy to return to the Church. I'd also be very grateful to you for finding such evidence because I've been looking for that evidence for 30 years.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 23, 2003 10:43:59 AM
Does anyone here read the catchesim .
Please read 2357-2359.
This is a settled issue the church clearly states it's morality as well as clearly states it's anti-discrimination stance.
People are recognized by their nationality and sex not by their sexuality.
Church has indeed spoken publicly in it's oppostion to divorce and birth control, unless no liberals would be trying to blame the spread of AIDS on the Catholic Church.
Posted by: Larry at Dec 23, 2003 11:09:22 AM
Larry writes:
This is a settled issue the church clearly states it's morality as well as clearly states it's anti-discrimination stance.
The Catechism says that "every instance of unjust discrimination must be eliminated." That phrase, "unjust discrimination" comes from a 1992 letter from the CDF to the United States Council of Catholic Bishops. That letter cites not one single instance of unjust discrimination, but it does serve as a position paper in justifying discrimination. It's only answer to such discrimination is that because the sexual orientaiton of a person is not generally known, the issue of unjust discrimination does not usually arise. It goes on to say that same-sex orientation cannot
be the basis of non-discrimination laws.
It renders the Catechism's claim of an anti-discrimination stance a lie.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 23, 2003 11:16:36 AM
Barbara,
Actually the Church did argue against liberalization of divorce laws when no-fault divorces were first proposed. It also refuses to pay for birth control for its employees as a matter of religious conscience. It has largely ignored homosexual sins as evidenced by the number of practicing homosexuals -- lay and clerical -- holding important positions within the Church. The Church doesn't even act against homosexual (or heterosexual for that matter) persons when they are involved in criminal acts or engage in risky relationships that pose a serious legal and financial liabilities to Church resources -- not to mention the risk of serious spiritual harm to those who are scandalized. I think your assertion that the Church is selective in what sin's it notices is not supported by the facts. I'd argue that the sometimes one has to wonder if the theology of today is that Christ is calling us to be ok with our sins, to accept them, to nuture them and to cherish them. And then we wonder why there is so much pain in the world.
While the church is currently lobbying against efforts to equate homosexual unions with marriage,it also has recently suppported efforts to grant homosexuals access to health care and other social/economic benefits enjoyed by married couples.
The Church and its members has just as much right as any other institution or citizen to weigh in on matters of current public debate. Homosexual marriage is currently a matter of debate. This matter is especially significant as the way in which the arguements are framed, there would be legal repression of any group or persons who would continue to hold that such marriage is wrong.
Beyond that, the arguements put forth by supporters of homosexual marriage ignore the culturual, historic, biological, evolutionary, and religious infrastructure of human society. This is happening in Canada and in Europe. The state would be able to define religious belief. The Church is arguing that marriage is a cultural and historical institution. It could even argue that from an evolutionary standpoint, one can make the same argument. Human genes are optimized for heterosexual procreation and life-long mating for the purpose of creating and rearing children. Barring serious familial dysfunctionalities, human children fare best when they are part of an intact family unit (as many current studies of children of divorce are showing). This is true of some other species. The fact that some individuals have inherited genes or have been patterned by life experieces to follow an alternate sexual expression path is not evidence that the preferred path for the species as a whole should not be preserved and protected.
Reasonable accomodations can be made for those who have not inherited the genes or acquired the disposition to follow other paths to live lives in peace and harmony free from hateful acts of discrimination. The church has indicated that it would not oppose civil unions or other types of arrangements. The Church has stated clearly that homosexuals should not be victims of discrimination but neither should they be allowed to redefine what is the optimal, natural, biologically ingrained path for human creation and development. The Church's theological argument is simply that in respecting God's will for marriage is fostering humanity's greatest good. Further the Church makes an argument from natural law - the prevalence of marriage in all societies across human history.
In short the Church has the same ability as any institution in this land to weigh in on our political process and live according to its conscience. The unique thing about this debate, is that as currently framed, if the Church looses, it will cease to be able to continue with its long held belief that God's will is that sexual unions are primarily for receiving the sacred gift of being able to participate in His creative life and for creating a bond of sacred love oriented towards union with God between the two individuals. Some, like our friend Frank, who support homosexual marriage, are trying to equate anyone who differs with homosexuals on marriage as being the equivalent of dictators who would sentence them to gulags. The truth is, in fact, the other way around: if homosexual marriage priviliges are granted, the state will be persecuting any religion who holds that homosexual marriage is wrong. It is already happening in Canada. The Bible has been targeted as hate speech.
Posted by: Therese at Dec 23, 2003 11:27:36 AM
Frank: It renders the Catechism's claim of an anti-discrimination stance a lie.
No it doesn't. It only means that the Catholic Church finds some instances of discrimination against homosexuals to be just. You may disagree with that, but it doesn't make the Church inconsistent.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Dec 23, 2003 11:29:31 AM
Thumping the Catechism Larry writes:
<<
People are recognized by their nationality and sex not by their sexuality.
>>
By the Church's argument, since religion is not a salient characteristic, there is no reason to protect people from discrimination on the basis of reliigon. I suppose all those
oppressed Chinese Catholics should just keep their mouths shut. Roma locuta causa finita est. Right, Larry?
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 23, 2003 11:30:17 AM
Rod Dreher writes:
<<
No it doesn't. It only means that the Catholic Church finds some instances of discrimination against homosexuals to be just. You may disagree with that, but it doesn't make the Church inconsistent.
>>
See my note to Larry.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 23, 2003 11:38:55 AM
"People are recognized by their nationality and sex not by their sexuality."
Any man who walks around with a overly-gentle gait is going to be suspected of homosexuality even if he isn't. He will be subjected to a certain amount of discrimination.
The 1992 CDF letter is flawed for some of the reasons that have been described above. Thankfully, it is not really an act of the ordinary papal magisterium that is binding on the faithful; it is more a Vatican position paper than anything else.
I think the main reason why the Church's witness against unjust discrimination towards gays is so muted is because there is no consensus as to what discrimination is just and what is unjust. There are minimizers and maximizers and people somewhere in the middle. You will have some bishops who endorse anti-discrimination legislation and some who oppose them, depending on the law that is being proposed and the perspective of the bishop. On the whole, however, when confronted with such a controverted issue with "vile and toxic" rhetoric flying all around, the bishops will usually take the "safe route" and say nothing other than to mouth the Catechism verbatim.
A case in point is the Knight Amendment in California where Cardinal Mahony agreed to support a public relations campaign in favor of it provided that it did not demonize gays in the process, etc. etc. Predictably, of course, some of his own gay clergy made public statements denouncing him and the self-proclaimed "defenders of the magisterium" did the same thing. Mahony did the right thing, and the Knight Amendment was passed in an honorable way. However, so many gay activists and anti-sodomy activists are poisonous and obnoxious, it is difficult to blame many bishops for declining the invitation to get into a pissing match with a bunch of skunks or, worse, get on the same dais with any of them.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Dec 23, 2003 12:03:44 PM
Therese, the church did at one time try to avoid liberalizing divorce laws but it does no more. Yet the conduct is still sinful. So I guess the moral of the story is, oppose, and, when unsuccessful, give up and go after the next group of heretofore outcasts.
I actually think the church is a bit different from the average interest group in terms of "pushing" its views, depending on the specific view. Because the church must realize that large swaths of people do not accept its premise -- they are not believers. So laws that regulate private conduct such as birth control and homosexuality are based largely on the "immorality" of that conduct, and not on their impact on third parties. So the church was, I would argue, wrong to oppose the legalization of contraception, and it is now wrong to oppose the recognition of civil unions.
I won't respond to your arguments that appear to me to be based on your view of evolutionary biology. Gays somehow made it this far so their genes must be sufficiently adaptive for survival. Many people marry without the intention or ability to have children. We accommodate them just fine without undermining child bearing marriages, and in my humble opinion, there are very sound cultural and societal reasons for continuing to do so.
Posted by: Barbara at Dec 23, 2003 12:16:13 PM
Is there a bishop that you approve of Rod?
I'm not suggesting that what you posted, if true, is the finest hour of Cardinal George. But you seem, Rod, to have something in your file against every bishop that precludes you from seeing anything except your vision of the gladiator bishop as something worthwhile. And is it possible that the lack of response to Mr. Brady and RCF (whether you think it is appropriate or not) has more to due with Mr. Brady's tactics than his good desires for the Church? Look at these examples from the website about RCF:
"We need a victory to be taken seriously by the hierarchy, so we will concentrate on the abuses in one diocese at a time for now. As we succeed in defeating the modernists and feminists and restoring the Faith, slowly but surely we will become recognized as a powerful force for Truth."
Or how about the fact that they released a press release declaring Cardinal George not competent to lead the Archdiocese of Chicago?
I mean, however noble the cause, one must realize that you can't walk into a room and let off a grenade and expect people to respond well to you. Sure, there is a time and place that activism of the sort RCF seems to advocate could be appropriate. But are you confident RCF properly answers that question?
Posted by: JACK at Dec 23, 2003 12:23:12 PM
I like Bruskewitz. Are there more like him?
I mean, however noble the cause, one must realize that you can't walk into a room and let off a grenade and expect people to respond well to you. Sure, there is a time and place that activism of the sort RCF seems to advocate could be appropriate. But are you confident RCF properly answers that question?
While I don't cotton to everything RCF has said and done, I vastly prefer to the actions Steve Brady is taking to reform the Church and tell the truth about the rot and abuse therein than the actions the bishops and far too many of us lay Catholics are not taking.
Complacency in the face of evil is not a virtue. If not for Steve Brady, for example, St. Sebastian's Angels would still be going strong. At least Steve Brady has a spine. More to the point, Steve Brady has balls.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Dec 23, 2003 12:29:30 PM
Rod,
You keep up the good fight. Brady and Bruskewicz do have balls, as evidenced by TWO filled seminiaries.
Meanwhile, so many priests do not get it. On December 14, our pastor was making the announcements before Mass when the celebrant was walking towards the rear of the church. The pastor, jokingly siad "The theme today is Pretty in Pink!". The celebrant then said loudly, "No, can't you see it's Rose!".
They acted exactly like two aged queens shopping.
Merry Christmas to all, especially the troll haunting this thread.
Posted by: cs at Dec 23, 2003 1:12:01 PM
Barbara, actually the Church will still weigh in on divorce laws where the matter is still under public debate in some countries. Here in the US it is not longer under debate. I would argue that the country is not better off for the liberalization of the divorce laws as evidenced by the gut wrenching long term emotional pain I have seen children, non-custodial parents, and spouses endure. Nothing like a divorce to bring out the worst in a person.
As far as the evolutionary arguement is concerned, I personally have no problem with generous civil accommodations for them -- providing these same accomodations do not force society to deny certain biolical realities -- 2 men or 2 women cannot create life and from a natural law standpoint such sexual unions should not enjoy equal status for the raising of children. While there should not be a law barring their raising their natural children or adopting children in special circumstances, I do not believe that these households should be the place of choice. When liberalized divorce laws were argued, everyone said but it will be so much better for the children basing their case on exceptional situations like abusive spouses. What has happened is that people divorce for all manner of reasons and children are harmed. Jesus was right -- divorce on demand is not, in general, good for child or parent. Someday, I suspect that future studies will proove that in general same sex households are not the best for children and not because of any defect in the persons but rather because a child's development is (in general) best fostered by the presense of two parents of different sexes.
I have no interest in forcing homosexuals to live according to the ways of my faith. I, however, also have no interest in their forcing the faith that I believe in to be conformed to their ways. Nor do I have interest in their redefining an institution that has persisted in human culture and history. Create a new institution. I have no problem with that. I wonder how many would opt out of this new institution or even marriage as do many heterosexuals to avoid messy divorces.
On the other hand, modern marriage --expecially civil -- has been reduced to not much more than a wealth redistribution contract. Two people enter into the contract without a benefit of a copy of the contract nor any idea what will exactly happen should the contract be broken. It's kind of crazy -- we require more documentation for a loan to buy a car then for a contract that could result in your giving the other party most of your assets and your rights to be a parent.
Maybe the Church ought to decouple itself from such civil institutions and stick with the sacramental terminology -- holy matrimony -- which would be a state recognized religious option offered only to a subset of those eligible for civil marriage. The Church would not be discriminating (as it would not be preventing anyone from entering into a civil same sex union, homosexuals would feel at last to be "equal", and homosexuals would not be able to persecute the Church for discrimination..but then I am dreaming a subset would still need to change the Word of God to confirm to their lifestyle..there would always be that fear that maybe, just maybe, God's will is reflected in the Bible.
Posted by: Barbara at Dec 23, 2003 1:21:10 PM
Aplogies to Barbara!..the post above is from me..Cursor must have been in the name block ..Amy if you can fix please do!
Posted by: Therese at Dec 23, 2003 1:23:00 PM
Therese writes:
<<<
Maybe the Church ought to decouple itself from such civil institutions and stick with the sacramental terminology -- holy matrimony -- which would be a state recognized religious option offered only to a subset of those eligible for civil marriage. The Church would not be discriminating (as it would not be preventing anyone from entering into a civil same sex union, homosexuals would feel at last to be "equal", and homosexuals would not be able to persecute the Church for discrimination..but then I am dreaming a subset would still need to change the Word of God to confirm to their lifestyle..there would always be that fear that maybe, just maybe, God's will is reflected in the Bible.
>>>
Doubtless, there would be a few, but the majority would be free to entertain the possibility that your faith's views are true without the threat of coercion.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 23, 2003 1:44:36 PM
cs writes:
Merry Christmas to all, especially the troll haunting this thread.
Why thank you, cs. Merry Christmas to you from the Troll.
Posted by: Troll at Dec 23, 2003 1:49:32 PM
CS: The pastor, jokingly said "The theme today is Pretty in Pink!". The celebrant then said loudly, "No, can't you see it's Rose!".
I think "Pretty in Pink" is pretty much the theme for the American Catholic Church for the past 40 years.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Dec 23, 2003 2:02:59 PM
Cardinal George thought the Sebastian's Angels website might be an occasion of
sin to him? How interesting -- I will assume the sin he had in mind was anger.
More seriously, I think we underestimate how difficult it is for orthodox
members of the hierarchy to govern dioceses where there is an entrenched
heterodox presbyterate. I know of a really splendid Vicar General who said
about someone brought back to the Church, "Well, we can't send him to his
territorial parish, of course, because he'll just lose the Faith all over
again." I think many good bishops are simply resigned to waiting things
out until generations change. I don't know a single seminarian or newly
ordained priest I don't respect. Does someone have the demographics on the
priests who signed this letter?
Posted by: David Kubiak at Dec 23, 2003 2:11:55 PM
Rod Dreher writes:
I think "Pretty in Pink" is pretty much the theme for the American Catholic Church for the past 40 years.
Certainly the lavender mafia have a pretty miserable record, but left to your own devices, the heteros would have put up aluminum siding on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. One good repressed homosexual made all the difference.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 23, 2003 2:34:28 PM
"Meanwhile, so many priests do not get it. On December 14, our pastor was making the announcements before Mass when the celebrant was walking towards the rear of the church. The pastor, jokingly siad "The theme today is Pretty in Pink!". The celebrant then said loudly, "No, can't you see it's Rose!".
They acted exactly like two aged queens shopping."
I would be careful about drawing too many conclusions from this story. It sounds like a lot of sacristy banter that I have heard over the years. Sometimes it can be funny, but sometimes the campy sensibility of it is just too much for my tastes. There are a fair number of priests not a member of any "lavender mafia" (real or imagined) who have done similar things that would appear to be unmasculine to some. I'm thinking of the good priest who had a reputation of doing uncannily dead-on Margaret Thatcher interpretations. There are others with similar views and sensibilities as well floating around.
On a related note, it is sad that rose-colored vestments have largely disappeared from the scene in part because of the fear of appearing effeminate as this story appears to show.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Dec 23, 2003 2:45:24 PM
Patrick,
You are making the point! It was sacristy banter, said to everyone. Since I've known both priests for many years, I know how they talk in the sacristy. Yes, it is campy. That's the point. They sound campy, and if I wanted campy I would go to a Fringe festival, not to Sunday Mass.
This type of "Sacristy Banter" is in bad taste. It is one of the reasons for a lack of vocations. Who would want to hang around guys who talk like that?
The times that I have visited larger rectories or monestaries, there is ususally a rec room with a well stocked bar. The conversations in those places reminded me of Frasier & Niles Crane.
Pitiful, just pitiful.
Posted by: cs at Dec 23, 2003 3:02:59 PM
I'm not sure what homosexual Catholics want. Do they want the Church to declare that they are just "made that way" and that they can't help themselves, and therefore, their homosexual activity is not sinful. I can't see any circumstances under which that would happen.
Given that, what do they want?
The Church condemns bank robbery, but is willing to accept contrite former bankrobbers into its ranks. It is not willing to tell them that robbing banks is OK. It is not willing to tell them that there are no consequences to robbing banks. It is not willing to tell them that it understands why they rob banks. And it does not set up associations and events that would encourage bankrobbers to associate with other bank robbers.
It all goes back to whether or not the act is wrong and sinful. If it is, certain consequences arise.
What am I missing? What (agenda) are they hiding?
Posted by: Jim at Dec 23, 2003 3:03:45 PM
Patrick,
I have never considered the Lenten or Advent vestments effeminate. My "sensibilities" as you say were offended.
Posted by: cs at Dec 23, 2003 3:08:37 PM
Jim writes:
It all goes back to whether or not the act is wrong and sinful. If it is, certain consequences arise.
The Church promulgates the assumption that anyone known as homosexual must be engaged in sexual activity or be an advocate of such activity. The converse is that in order to be in the good graces of the Church one is forced to keep a very difficult secret for a lifetime and to cultivate a very mistrustful attitude in order to avoid discovery.
One might try to do this for years or even decades but one is left with the problem that the Church advocates tolerance only for those it can't see.
This is Ratzinger's Paradox.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 23, 2003 3:49:40 PM
Yeah Patrick, heterosexuals who appreciate the difference between "pink" and "rose" are pretty hard to come by.
Posted by: Rod Dreher at Dec 23, 2003 4:14:16 PM
I once encountered a situation (in an Anglican context) where a priest had a very angry reaction when I described those vestments as "pink." He bellowed, "THEY ARE NOT PINK. THEY ARE ROSE VESTMENTS!" You may remember the "Palaner (sp?) All-Fruit" commercials where there was a huffy reaction when the guy with the southern accent at the fancy dinner said "Would you please pass the jelly?" That was pretty close to the reaction I got. It was bizarre.
But I've called them rose vestments ever since. But usually they still look pink to me. Not that there's anything wrong with it.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Dec 23, 2003 4:48:28 PM
A little Christmas story for Mr. Dreher and the other gonad clankers.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4825165-105806,00.html
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 23, 2003 4:53:34 PM
Therese, I doubt if you and I really disagree about much other than semantics. Merry Christmas. And I do that too with getting the name in the wrong place.
Posted by: Therese at Dec 23, 2003 5:33:58 PM
Frank,
You must know that the Church manifestly does not assume that a homosexual, known or otherwise, must be engaged in homosexual activity or advocate such. I don't think for a minute that you are that misinformed. The ugly inference is plain.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Dec 23, 2003 8:19:27 PM
It takes longer to turn around a battleship than a much smaller craft. As admirable as the Bishop of Lincoln is, I cannot imagine him succeeding in Chicago as well as Cardinal George. In addition, one must note, that in part Cardinal George spends so much time reacting to daily events, that real change in the Archdiocese is coming from the work of the Holy Spirit bringing forth new orthodox and traditional leadership in others. Cardinal George has done all he can to favor these new initiatives (like the Canons Regular of St. John Cantius) and has himself acted directly (to renew the seminary or to appoint more reliable priests to key parishes in the Archdiocese). Notably, the letter was signed by Fr. Robert McLaughlin, whom the Cardinal refused to re-appoint as Rector of the Cathedral (for which he took some heat). Not content to merely wait for more native vocations, the Cardinal has also taken in many seminarians from Poland, Africa and Mexico. One bishop has pointed out that it is hard to fight more than one big battle at a time. The Cardinal has had his hands full trying to eliminate the use of general absolution in the Archdiocese and has had his hands full dealing the the naitonal issues of the sex abuse crisis and local problems, such as the Tribune's crusade against the youth home of Maryville. It would be nice if he were a bit tougher and less patience, but we cannot order custom made designer bishops. Every bishop has strengths and weaknesses. I have no doubt that if the Holy Spirit led someone to take the work of an organization like Courage to a higher level in Chicago, that person would have the Cardinal's full support. Until then, the Cardinal avoids getting into needless battles (like supressing AGLO). In modo suavitudo, fortitudo in rei.
Posted by: Socius at Dec 23, 2003 10:14:29 PM
Frank E. writes:
"The Church promulgates the assumption that anyone known as homosexual must be engaged in sexual activity or be an advocate of such activity."
How does one become "known as homosexual", other than to manifest (through behavior) or declare openly one's sexual preference for sexual activity with persons of the same sex? The conclusion that one either is engaging or would voluntarily engage in such activity seems to me to be a reasonable conclusion.
The Church, by declaring that homosexual activity is sinful, is saying that although a person may be inclined or predisposed to such activity, it is still wrong and sinful. The same could be said of fornication, adultery, lying, stealing and robbing banks. You just seem to resent the original assertion of the proposition that homosexual activity is wrong.
Am I misrepresenting your position, Frank?
Posted by: Jim at Dec 23, 2003 10:24:30 PM
Mike, I hope you're a better liar as a tax attorney. You ineptly misrepresented what I said:
The Church promulgates the assumption that anyone known as homosexual must be engaged in sexual activity or BE AN ADVOCATE OF SUCH ACTIVITY.
From the CDF's 1992 letter:
<<<
Homosexual persons who assert their homosexuality tend to be precisely those who judge homosexual behavior or lifestyle to be "either completely harmless, if not an entirely good thing"...
>>>
The CDF also makes the rather assinine assertion:
<<<
An individual's sexual orientation is generally not known to others unless he publicly identifies himself as having this orientation or unless some overt behavior manifests it. As a rule, the majority of homosexually oriented persons who seek to lead chaste lives do not publicize their sexual orientation. Hence the problem of discrimination in terms of employment, housing, etc., does not usually arise.
>>>
Taken together, the Church says that anti-gay discrimination is justfied in three circumstances:
1. Evidence of same-sex sexual activity.
2. Public evidence of approval of such activity.
3. Declaration of orientation.
Hence, the Church says that free speech which does not indicate criminal intent (or any other form of intent) justifies discrimination.
So, tell me, Mike, how can you prostitute your citizenship to justify this kind of clerical fascism?
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 23, 2003 10:26:03 PM
Whathever one thinks of CDF statements on homosexuality, I think its safe to say that the personal attack by Frank Elliott in the post above mine qualify as "vile and toxic." This is not the first time that Frank has abused comment boxes on other blogs. Amy, I know you have better things to do, but Frank has gone too far. Can you do something to stop him?
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Dec 23, 2003 10:39:47 PM
Patrick,
I respect your opinion and your judgement.
I'll confine my comments to my own blog, which I'm starting presently.
Posted by: Frank Elliott at Dec 23, 2003 11:01:44 PM
Barbara,
Merry Christmas to you too! :-)
Posted by: Therese at Dec 24, 2003 12:01:44 AM
Frank wrote:
"The Church promulgates the assumption that anyone known as homosexual must be engaged in sexual activity or be an advocate of such activity."
and then repeats, WITH EMPHASIS
"The Church promulgates the assumption that anyone known as homosexual must be engaged in sexual activity or BE AN ADVOCATE OF SUCH ACTIVITY."
For someone who hangs around and posts on David Morrison's blog to make such statements is ... breathtaking.
In addition, there is nothing "assinine" or ass-anything-else about the quote from the CDF you cite, because it's making an empirical point, not a moral one -- namely, that being gay is not immediately apparent, in the way that sex or ethnicity are. How can anyone's being gay be known to others without some external act or declaration? Nothing in those cited sentences speaks to the morality of discrimination at all, merely whom it'd affect.
Posted by: Victor Morton at Dec 24, 2003 12:05:10 AM
There is a myth out there that homosexuality is genetically transmitted. If same sex couples cannot reproduce, how would this genetic abnormality be passed on to future generations?
But the point in Chicago is that we have a dissenting group of clerics. And we have a Cardinal who has not managed to eliminate in some way their pernicious influence on the lives of the community even though he has been in office for a number of years.
So, when confronted with an ambush on Christmas week the only response is lets talk. Well, we know from history that talks lead to negotiations. The Church cannot conceid points to dissidents and remain true to its mission. The problem is particularly acute when the negotiator/discussor occupies the see of Chicago.
Cardinal George speaks for American Catholics not just for those in the Windy City. I pray he will use his considerable talents to defend truth, take losses if he has to (say, diminished church income) and trust in God. Jesus got pretty rough with the merchants in the Temple. That was counter cultural and probably pretty unpopular with most except his disciples. But in the long run, another course of action would not have been right.
Posted by: John at Dec 24, 2003 7:07:11 AM
Frank E. wrote:
"Hence, the Church says that free speech which does not indicate criminal intent (or any other form of intent) justifies discrimination."
Frank, I don't think the Church says anything about "free speech", a term that has meaning in a U.S. constitutional law context, but little or no meaning in a discussion on moral law. Constitutionally protected free speech can and often is sinful: e.g., lewd speech that does not reach the level of pronography is "free speech", but no one would reasonably argue that it is free from moral consequences, just because it is "free speech".
Posted by: Jim at Dec 24, 2003 8:02:14 AM
John,
Actually it could be a regressive gene that expresses itself only when both parents are carriers. Much like how brown eyed parents who carry blue-eyed genes, can have a blue-eyed child but odds are they will have a brown-eyed child.
Personally, when all the political correctness that supresses science to the contrary is over, some 100 years hence, I am willing to bet that homosexuality will be found to have multiple causes. I suspect that it will be found that only a subset of homosexuals have "hard" genetic coding meaning that regardless of environment or developmental experiences they would have been homosexual. I am willing to bet that sexual patterning combined with the sublte and not yet understood interplay of the environment and developmental physiology plays a big role in homosexual orientations. We know people can learn to have sexual responses to all kinds of visual and physical stimuli as manifested in sexual fetishes and attractions to animals. So why can't same sex or different sex attractions also be partly due to learned response to stimuli?
When all the data is in, I suspect the answer will be that some people are hard-coded genetically and others are soft-coded (combination of life experiences and genetic tendicies). Then all of the American Psychology Assosiation people who have been holding that it is not possible to change one's orientation despite that fact that some poeple have, will have to concede that for a subset of homosexuals it is possible and helping them to do so should not be against medical ethics as currently held by the association.
Posted by: Therese at Dec 24, 2003 9:24:25 AM
Speculation about what science will or will not find out once "all the data is in" is interesting, but much of it is in the nature of science fiction.
Posted by: Jim at Dec 24, 2003 9:41:51 AM
Thank you, Patrick, for your post. For the record if one writes something that is wrong, to assume it is a lie (rather than a mistake) may be uncharitable (depending on the circumstances), but not necessarily unreasonable. If Frank wants to infer from a mistaken post that I am a liar, I can certainly live with that; but my post was absolutely spot on right and my paraphrase of his prior post was spot on fair. That makes Frank, well, Frank. Good riddance.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Dec 24, 2003 10:15:37 AM
Therese
Your speculations about genetics is reasonable. Although the regressive gene theory is not something that seems to me very probable. Biology seems to favor genes that promote vigor, life. Homoxsexual behavior is a source of nasty diseases, not a life affirming characteristic.
On the otherhand, I am more concerned about why the Cardinal would negotiate with a group who feeling emboldened by currently favorable cultural trends, decided to attack and go for all the marbles. Since they care nothing for Church teachings, is not Cardinal George offering to negotiate with evil? What is it he hopes to gain? Seems to me he could loose a lot just by agreeing to negotiate. Is there no line that dissenters on the left can not cross with impunity?
Posted by: Janos at Dec 24, 2003 12:40:42 PM
Janos,
I agree that the letter signers are dissenters, but their letter is carefully crafted to avoid proving that. An intemperate response from George would readily be used to make him look presumptuous, ridiculous and mean. Instead of a satisfying takedown, Rome's loyalists would suffer a tactical setback. George is creating a record of drawing only charitable inferences from any and all critical commentary if it is cloaked in sufficient ambiguity so as to avoid quailfying as express dissent. He has no choice but to be shrewd. Any other approach would lead to almost certain failure. Being right is an important weapon when undertaking intellectual battle, but it is no guarantor of victory, at least in this world. It is far too early to consider Cardinal George the George McClellen of orthodox American bishops. More likely he will be one of those unsung heroes whose victories are obscured in their time by a lack of drama, but which will understood well by future historians.
Posted by: Mike Petrik at Dec 24, 2003 1:38:20 PM
John McG, it is NOT a legitimate pastoral problem. People who persist in homosexual behavior without remorse have already removed themselves from practicing Catholicism by the practice of a profound level of mortal sin. Individuals who are in that condition would find it quite hard to come honestly into the Church, one would think, without changing their ways, given the fact they must convert and honestly confess...correct?
Indeed, the pastoral problem may be in mending the catechetical damage that has been caused by allowing this scandal to disrupt so much of the life and local teaching of the practicing actual Catholic Church....
Posted by: michigancatholic at Dec 27, 2003 2:06:17 AM
Frank, going to hell *is* sinister. The church is not telling people to avoid homosexuality just to annoy them. This is serious.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Dec 27, 2003 2:17:29 AM
Frank, quit whining.
Posted by: michigancatholic at Dec 27, 2003 2:24:00 AM
