« 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/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d83424f4aa53ef
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
