« On Air | Main | Document, Redux »

November 22, 2005

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451be0d69e200d8345aae4a69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference That Document:

» Vatican Document on Gay Priests from Vitamin B16
Chastity Means No Sex ... [Read More]

» Document leaked, translated from CatholicSphere
The Vatican Document "Concerning the Criteria of Vocational Discernment Regarding Persons With Homosexual Tendencies In View of Their Admission to Seminaries and Holy Orders" was leaked to the press, and has been very roughly translated to English. ... [Read More]

Comments

Kurt

I see Rocco as a useful source of information, but MY, the smug little snot he can be sometimes:

"Well, our friends at Adista have leaked the homosems document in advance of its release on Monday. That's A-D-I-S-T-A -- remember the name. Lawler is furious that the Left has just walked all over him on this story, in every way possible which is, gratefully, how God would have it...."

Anyway, my take on the document is that if it is *followed* it will actually do much good. But this will be the test of Benedict's pontificate. Facta, non verba. Oremus pro Benedicto!

Dan Crawford

What is a "Dicastery" - what does the word mean and where does it come from? Why does Rome consistently have a difficult time with simple words to express what it is about?

Michael in Denver

http://www.secondexodus.com/html/catholicdefinitions/dicastery.htm

Hope that helps, Dan.

Rich Leonardi

... those who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture.

It might not make anyone happy, but it'll probably cause a chuckle or two.

"'Actively'? Do you mean like right now? No, I'm not actively homosexual."

"'Deep seated'? Hmmm. I could give it up if I really tried and, well, I'd give anything to be a priest, so ... "

"'Support the gay culture'? You mean like showtunes and stuff? I hate those, so I guess I'm your man."

Tim Ferguson

Dan,

Rome has been using the word "dicasteria" (office/department - rooted in the Greek word for judgement)for over a thousand years now. The fact that the English equivalent "dicastery" is not a common word doesn't seem to me to be Rome's problem.

Kurt

This, of course, was my point, Rich. Anyone determined to get around this document *or any other document* (and allowed to) will do so.

Kurt

On a less humorous note, but to continue with my point, I know a recently ordained priest who studied in Rome. He is a very handsome (but non-gay) young man who was "hit on" by three different Roman monsignori during his time there. The success of this document will all be in the determination with which it is implemented.

Old Zhou

Given that the document reaffirms that the Bishop (or Religious Superior) is personally responsible ("La chiamata agli Ordini e responsabilita personale del Vescovo..."), and that the Bishops need to do the right things, "it is necessity that Bishops...carry out an attentive discernment regarding the suitability of candidates to Holy Orders, from the admission to Seminary to Ordination," well, I don't expect a lot to change unless the Bishops (and Religious Superiors) change.

anonfornow

I will have to go anon for this one. The document is clear. It won't keep someone out who did something at a friends sleepover in 6th grade. BUT if they self-identify as "gay" and/or have ongoing homosexual tendencies THEN they are out. That is "deep-seated". They are absolutely out if they are a practicing homosexual. If the policy is followed accordingly it means that in effect homosexuals should not be ordained. Any other interpretation is solely designed to get around the document and avoid what it really says. IF we adhere strictly to the document then we will clean house. IF we don't, then our problems will continue. Let's face facts, homosexuals should simply not be ordained.

Broken Messenger

I am not here to argue that homosexuality is a sin, but will an order be produced for arrogance? How about envy? Gluttony?

Brad

Broken Messenger

ugh..

previous should read "not here to argue that homosexuality is NOT a sin..." Okay, going away now.

Brad

Grant Gallicho

Homosexuality is not a sin.

Tom Haessler

anonfornow,

Why in the world would you need to be anonymous to post such a non-controversial interpretation of the Instruction. Or is it that you fear that some might start parsing your subtext (unhappy with the qualifier "deep-seated").

The times call for men who know what they think, why, and aren't afraid to stand up and say what they believe needs to be said despite flack. My name is

Tom Haessler

Tim Ferguson

Canonically (and this is important, not just legalese mumbo-jumbo), the document is an Instruction. It's approved in the ordinary manner, NOT "in forma specifica", which means that this document is an act of executive authority - the authority of the issuing Congregation for Catholic Education. As an Instruction, it is NOT law (cf. canon 34), and cannot overturn existing laws.
As an administrative act, it is still binding, but the binding portions of the decree seem more exhortary than punitive. In that, it presupposes that the people it's dealing with and bishops and rectors it's addressed to are men of good faith.

Some would say that's a stretch and naive. I'm not sure what the alternative is - suspect everyone of being evil? How does our dogma of the forgiveness of original sin in baptism fit in here?

The document places the onus of discernment primarily on the seminarian - where, I believe, it belongs. That certainly permits liars, cheats, and perverts to try and get around the norms of law. It doesn't authorize or encourage a "witch hunt" that many people say is called for. It does permit good bishops and rectors to use this document as a tool to clean up their seminaries and foster healthy vocations. It permits bad bishops to remain bad bishops; it permits bad rectors to remain bad rectors; it permits lying seminarians to become lying priests. It doesn't eradicate sin with the stroke of a pen. Short of curtailing everyone's God-given rights and freedoms, I don't know how a mere document could do any more - even if it was more forceful, it would not be able to weed out every possible unsuitable candidate for the priesthood.

What we (as lay people I mean) can do is hold our bishops, priests and seminarians feet to the fire (as I would hope our bishops, priests and seminarians do to us, as well) - pressing their honesty. If someone you know is a seminarian flagrantly leading a life of immorality or struggling with psychological problems - talk to him, urge him to leave, get help - tell him that unless he does so, you've got not choice but to bring it to the next level. Fraternal correction is the solution to the current situation, I'm convinced.

Amy

Wise words, Tim. Thank you.

Nick

I expect a fevered kremlinology will develop around the precise explication of the phrase, "deep seated."

Even on the anecdotal evidence of the experience of friends and acquaintances with whom I have spoken about such matters, the ways in which people experience their sexual orientation seem various and complex.

Most people I know experience orientation, gay or straight, as fixed, uncomplicated and without much in the way of nuance. I'd include myself in that category. Yet I have met gay people who thought (sometimes for many years) that they were straight, as well as straight people who once thought they were gay, but changed their minds. I have also spoken with people who were genuinely confused and with some who described their orientation as "fluid."

Thus I don't remotely envy those who are put in charge of discerning such things among candidates for the priesthood!

Even if everyone was completely determined to play it by the rules, I suspect that we would still find priests who acted in good faith concluding later in life that they weren't as straight as they once thought they were.

Old Zhou

This document, and the comments of Tim Ferguson, remind me of Revelation 22:11-13, just a few verses short of the end of Holy Scripture:

He that is unrighteous,
let him do unrighteousness still:
and he that is filthy,
let him be made filthy still:
and he that is righteous,
let him do righteousness still:
and he that is holy,
let him be made holy still.

Behold, I come quickly;
and my reward is with me,
to render to each man
according as his work is.

I am the Alpha and the Omega,
the first and the last,
the beginning and the end.

al

I think anonfornow's plain spokenness will be controversial, once people realize that "SSA"="ongoing homosexual tendencies".

Which pretty much demolishes the old "its not the type of temptation but the strength of the resistance that matters."

Sure people with "ongoing homosexual tendencies" can live heroic lives in fighting them. Its just that that doesn't leave them much time for pastoring God's sheep.

Rocco Palmo

The key phrase is this:

"This Congregation reaffirms the necessity that Bishops, Superior Generals, and all those responsible carry out an attentive discernment regarding the suitability of candidates to Holy Orders, from the admission to Seminary to Ordination. This discernment must be done in light of a concept of ministerial priesthood that is in conformity with the teaching of the Church."

In other words, the ball is still where it always was -- with the Bishops and religious superiors. And, in a way, it echoes the explicit emphasis of the role of the bishop/superior in the Instrumentum Laboris for the seminary visitations, almost seeming a commentary that they haven't been as on top of things as they need to be....

As for "a concept of ministerial priesthood in conformity..." well, there are as many of those as there are Bishops and religious superiors; every man has a differing definition.

Remember, too, that these are baseline criteria and seminaries and superiors are free to tack on whatever additional criteria they see fit within the bounds of their competence.

The line about "the particular importance of human formation as the necessary foundation of all formation" is good; I could start rattling off houses where that's not the case.

And, yes, it's good to be first ;-)

Eric Giunta

What seems wrong to me is that this document allows men to be ordained if they've slept with other men befpre the three years prior to their ordination as deacon.

According to this, an actively homosexual seminarian would not be hindered from ordination if he has gay sex during his formation! Men who are actively homosexual may be even be accepted as candidates to a seminary!

Shouldn't the document reques a three year "sex-break" from those entering seminary, not those being ordained?!!!

David Morrison

Al, the fact is that the degree to which men may struggle with same sex attraction and whether that struggle would be one that would interfere with their studies in seminary or with being a priest varies from individual to individual. For example, for some reason some men who live with no SSA have a great deal of difficulty with chastity (St. Augustine, for instance) while other men do not.

Some men living with a degree of SSA do so to such a degree that they would not be good candidates for priesthood. Other men who also live with a degree of SSA but find it has little impact on them will not be in the same boat.

People living with SSA are no more exactly alike as people who don't live with any.

Tim Ferguson

Eric - way to be inflammatory, even using three exclamation points!!!

did you read the document? It says nothing about a "sex break" or permitting sexual activity in the seminary. It states that homosexual tendencies (tendencies, not activity - see the earlier portion of the document for clarification on the difference) should have been resolved at least three years before ordination.

The document clearly states that homosexual activity does not belong in a seminary and those who are actively homosexual should not be admitted to the seminary.

Old Zhou

Tim Ferguson wrote, homosexual activity does not belong in a seminary and those who are actively homosexual should not be admitted to the seminary. I would assume this also extends to heterosexuals. After all, there are women on the faculty and staffs of many seminaries now, and many religious seminaries are co-ed. And even at single-sex seminaries, the guys do get off campus now and then.

The call is to "observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" (Can 277 §1). Why is this so hard to understand?

Rich Leonardi

In other words, the ball is still where it always was -- with the Bishops and religious superiors.

Which should people in places like, say, Rochester great comfort.

Rich Leonardi

Insert "give" between "should" and "people"

anonymous seminarian

Very nice comments Tim. I might add that a healthy seminary (and Church for that matter) is only possible where there is not a fear of charitible fraternal correction: seminarians do well to look out for one another and help eachother grow in holiness and authenticity.

Tom: In defense of the anon posters like myself- people sometimes have good reasons for doing so. Sometimes heeding the consequences of our words and actions can be prudent. If anybody wants to communicate privately without the psuedonymn, my e-mail is here.

Josh

I was going to post something personal, but I decided against it.

Just say a prayer for those of us who struggle every day to be faithful children of God, following His Holy Church in all things, in spite of the crosses we carry and the flak we get for it.

Josh

anonfornow

Tom,
Maybe I am in a diocese where the lavender mafia rules and I fear their retribution. They have this nasty habit of trying to eliminate anyone who accepts the Church's teaching. Sometimes the "witchhunt" is perpetrated by the homosexuals themselves against people like me. I have good reasons for being an anon and I am straight btw. I look forward to the day when I won't have to be afraid and can speak my mind freely. This document is a step in that direction. Until then I must sign myself,
anonfornow

Leonard

The three year test period is mentioned in the paragraph dealing with the homosexual tendencies. Therefore I believe it is a misreading to say that the document intends the three year period as a test period for simply remaining chaste. Rather, if a candidate has been without homosexual tendencies for a period of three years, it is a prudent judgment that the homosexual tendencies are not deeply seated.

Jim

I wish the document were stronger, but if it scares off even half the gays from even applying for the seminary it will be a great improvement over the present situation. And if it encourages more heterosexuals to pursue a vocation to the priesthood because they won't have to run the gauntlet at Lavender U., even better.

reluctant penitent

'On a less humorous note, but to continue with my point, I know a recently ordained priest who studied in Rome. He is a very handsome (but non-gay) young man who was "hit on" by three different Roman monsignori during his time there.'

It is his duty to expose the monsignori in question. A slap might be appropriate as well.

PC

Anon,

Can you out your diocese where the Lavender Mafia rules ?

At least let them know we know what they're up to and maybe their days are numbered!

reluctant penitent

'Well, our friends at Adista have leaked the homosems document in advance of its release on Monday. That's A-D-I-S-T-A -- remember the name. Lawler is furious that the Left has just walked all over him on this story...'

Adista is quite a publication. They're very fond of Gene Robinson. Take this fawning interview of the gay bishop for example:

http://www.adistaonline.it/?op=articolo&id=13394

The first question:

'Monsignor Robinson, qual è il suo messaggio per i gay e le lesbiche cattolici che combattono per una Chiesa più inclusiva ed aperta?'

That's V-I-S-T-A.

Minn-Ray

How many more billions of dollars, and for how long, must the Church continue to pay out for the deeds of immature and predatory individuals who continue to harm children and wreak havoc in their communities?

For ever? Just to be nice and provide jobs for people who would like access to children?

Bob

Not just our "anon" posters here, but several priests I know, say that speaking too openly on this topic might be hazardous to one's career. If the young priest in Rome had slapped the monsignori in question, he might have made a lot of trouble for himself.

James Kabala

I have (almost) always posted under my real name, but anonymity is an issue on which opinion has fluctuated greatly over the years. Nearly all pamphlet wars of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century were carried on under pseudonyms (e.g., the Federalist Papers by "Publius") and there was no imputation of cowardice on either side. Let anon be anonymous if he thinks it best.

pablo

Pope Benedict 1
Rocco 0

game on.

Tom Haessler

I now understand that for some there may be good reasons to post anonymously. But I'm troubled by reference to priestly "careers". The Cure of Ars accomplished much good for souls in the boonies. There may be reasons for seminarians in certain dioceses to keep a low profile if they feel they'd be kicked out for adherence to Catholic teaching. [Although there have been cases where some seminarians were very much mistaken about exactly what the Church did teach, and yet they were ready to instruct their instructors!]. For priests already ordained, there should never be instances where prudence makes it necessary to keep a low profile about doctrinal and moral issues. But it's very important for priests to preach and teach the truth with kindness and tact which should never mean an absence of frankness. Some defending Catholic teaching today go for the jugular vein every time, questioning the integrity of their opponents, and judging them to be evil. This is one job God did not give us.

Tom Haessler

Socius

It would be a good idea not to ordain any seminarian, straight or gay, who supports gay culture, i.e., who does not agree with and will not teach the doctrine of the Church concerning the moral life. Ditto for other false teachings. I have heard of one Cardinal telling his seminarians that if they support women's ordination, they should not present themselves to be ordained.

Better yet, why not form and ordain priests who have the knowledge and training to minister to those afflicited with temptations of SSA.

reluctant penitent

actually that's A-D-I-S-T-A, not vista...scusate mi, ho sbagliato.

A scandalous publication all the same.

joeh

I will wait to see, although without much anticipation, what the US Bishops will do with this document. I suspect most will put it on the bullitin board marked "ignore" with many other documents. In doing so, with no penalty, the message is sent over and over that what the Church teaches does not matter and we can all pick what we want to believe. Until the Church gets serious about their teachings, do not expect much of the lambs to follow any of the shepherds.

Jimmy Huck

The angry contempt with which many of you refer to our Church hierarchy (or at least some -- many?? -- of them) as the "Lavender Mafia" really bothers me and makes me wonder if your contempt is any less angry and mean than theirs. For the sake of Christian kindness, please stop.

reluctant penitent

More on adista (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/11/22/D8E1NF900.html):

'A church official who has read the document confirmed the authenticity of the Internet posting by the Adista news agency.'

Is it just me or is it a problem that Vatican officials are giving advance information to a publication so infatuated with Gene Robinson? Couldn't they have at least leaked to the National Catholic Reporter?

David Kubiak

This is classic "Romanita". It really is amazing how the Roman authorities hand down the tradition from generation to generation of curialists. Endless wiggle room, plausible deniability. Given the subject probably nothing very much better could have been contemplated. People should be virtuous and human sexuality is endlessly complicated. It is very difficult to legislate the details of these facts.

And as for this priest who had problems with Roman monsignori, I think what men do is punch people, not slap them.

Patrick Rothwell

"And as for this priest who had problems with Roman monsignori, I think what men do is punch people, not slap them."

If a priest punches Roman monsignori for making goo-goo eyes at him or verbally expressing their interest in him, he has committed criminal assualt, not to mention laying violent hands upon a cleric, which (I thought) subjects him to potentiall canonical penalties as well.

Jim

"If a priest punches Roman monsignori for making goo-goo eyes at him or verbally expressing their interest in him, he has committed criminal assualt, not to mention laying violent hands upon a cleric, which (I thought) subjects him to potentiall canonical penalties as well."

When in doubt, I guess, it is better for one's clerical career to follow canon law (written by clerics for the benefit of clerics) than it is to do the right thing.

Is it any surprise that it is not a violation of canon law for a cleric to lie to a lay person?

Tim Ferguson

Jim,

As a lay canonist, I can assure you that canon law is not merely written "by clerics for the benefit of clerics"

Firstly, I suspect that Mr. Kubiak was speaking somewhat hyperbolically and not advocating hostile assault.

I don't think that punching out a priest (or anyone) making goo-goo eyes is "the right thing". Standing up to them, informing them that their advances are unwelcome and improper, being willing to go over their heads may the right thing to do, even though it may be career-ending (trust me, I know). Prudence is also a virtue and shouldn't be dismissed as cowardice or careerism.

It is indeed a violation of canon law for a cleric to lie to a lay person - or any Christian to lie to another. (cf. cc. 67, 69, 125,172,182,188,643, 656, 1098, 1191, 1200, 1457, 1645) Your sad attempts at anti-clerical vitriol are completely unsubstantiated.

Jeff

Patrick Rothwell:

I think the proper response to a man who punches a man for making a pass at him--ESPECIALLY if the pass-maker is a priest--is to shake your head and say, "Tsk, tsk, tsk!" VERY firmly indeed. Perhaps, a "Temper, temper!" might garnish the admonishment as well.

The proper response to the disgraced Monsignore would be a withering stare and silence. Let him take refuge in his "canonical penalties" if he wishes, the poor wronged dear.

Of course, it's turrible, turrible that people might get socked for such behavior. But if people were afraid they might get socked--or better yet, sacked!--they might just knock it off.

Patrick Rothwell

"Firstly, I suspect that Mr. Kubiak was speaking somewhat hyperbolically and not advocating hostile assault."

Tim,

If so, it was not obvious from the context. If a white person says, "I'll beat the shit out of that nigger if he ever makes moon eyes at my little sister," I think it's safe to assume it's not hyperbole. Moreover, the sentiment itself is repulsive whether hyperbole or not.

The rest of the post is fine by me. I didn't mean to focus on the canonical aspect so much as to say that it's immoral to strike a person in anger except in self-defense.

Father Todd Reitmeyer

There is very good reason for seminarians to be anonymous in their comments because they can face tremendous consequences for speaking the truth. To be a faithful seminarian can often times a detriment to ordination in some places; especially if politics comes into play. Fortunately for myself, I had a great Bishop to back me while I was in seminary.

anonymous seminarian

Just to clarify, I was defending the use of anonymity in general. There are many reasons why a person might not want to share too much personal info in a public space. Its sad to hear that some of these reasons may include fear of repraisals from formation teams or peers. I hope that such is not the case at most seminaries. God bless.

Samuel J. Howard

"laying violent hands upon a cleric, which (I thought) subjects him to potentiall canonical penalties as well."

You're probably thinking of the old code. In the current code the penalty has been limited to the Pope and the Bishops, and clerics and religious only with contempt for X. (Of course in Rome Monsignor can mean Bishop)

Can. 1370 §1. A person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if he is a cleric, another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, can be added according to the gravity of the delict.

§2. A person who does this against a bishop incurs a latae sententiae interdict and, if he is a cleric, also a latae sententiae suspension.

§3. A person who uses physical force against a cleric or religious out of contempt for the faith, the Church, ecclesiastical power, or the ministry is to be punished with a just penalty.

Sacerdos Incognitus

Jimmy Huck, you wrote:

"The angry contempt with which many of you refer to our Church hierarchy (or at least some -- many?? -- of them) as the "Lavender Mafia" really bothers me and makes me wonder if your contempt is any less angry and mean than theirs."

At the risk of giving scandal here (which I would find utterly improbable by this post on this item) I would only say that the use of "Lavender Mafia," however tasteless, however pungent the visceral reaction we should all have to such a term in this context, is likely not angry contempt, but simple statement of (sad and disappointing) fact. We got to where we now are (what G. Weigel has characterized as the "long lent of 2002") because of the presence of gay (and here I mean full-fledged, gay-activist, actively homosexual deviants among the ranks of clergy - even among the hierarchy of bishops) clergy with an agenda. It may (and should) disgust me (and other people of good will) to use such a term to describe some clergy, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be called out for what it is. Lavender because of the "gay" (refer again to my definition above) factor and mafia because there is a network of individuals with its own (even if unwritten) code which includes intimidation and spiritual fraud. It disgusts me in the same way the proper use of "abotion mill" disgusts me, but that disgust does not change the reality of what is being described.

As far as anonymity goes, I wonder whether I should post anonymously here out of fear of reprisal. My clerical career is not a concern - I have never aspired to be anything more than a holy priest, and nothing I say here can hinder me from continuing to seek holiness. I would point out however, in defense of anonymous posters, that the Lavender Mafia has been known to be so ruthless in some places that they would not consider themselves above fitting an opponent for concrete shoes - I am not joking here! Consider the priest (what was his name?) in Duluth who murdered two individuals (before taking his own life) in order to cover up his pederastic behavior.

yes Jimmy, the "Lavender Mafia" is a serious thing and they can pose a formidable threat to any who get in the way of their agenda. I don't think the use of the term here is out of angry contempt (righteous indignation perhaps!)

Observer

Sacerdos Incognitus: how very very true, about the "ruthless[ness]" of the Lavender Mafia, "a network of individuals with its own ... code .... " Thank you for naming the sins: both their perversion, and their cover-up.

Too, everyone's defense of anonymity is also well-taken. Whenever homosex comes up, look at the responses by JimmyMac and all the others.

Wouldn't everyone be better off if we worried about holiness?

Zhou: thank you, as always, for pointing out Rev. 22:11-13. The Horsemen are unleashed. Wasn't that quoted at length in a Johnny Cash song?

Jimmy Huck

Sacerdos Incognitus - If what you say is true, then why not refer to the "cover-up" clergy as the "Pederast Protection Patrol" or another such clever little moniker meant not to express "righteous indignation" only (which indignation, by the way, can always be expressed without the offensive phraseology), but also to take a little pleasure in digging in the knife by using such a colorful turn of phrase.

There are many wonderful gay priests who are as much turned off by the actions of their more aggressive and outspoken gay colleagues in the clerical community; but I'll bet they wince at the anti-gay sentiment behind the "Lavender mafia" reference, just as much as black critics of the tactics of Al Sharpton would wince should a white person call Sharpton and his like the "Black KKK", or the law-abiding Italian when faced with the anti-Italian term "Pasta Mafia" to refer to his criminal country-mates. Whether righteous indignation or angry contempt, please find a less inflammatory and disrespectful way to express it.

Regarding the question of anonymity, I am on the fence about it. But I will say that it is cowardly to hide under the cover of anonymity in order to attack or criticize someone whose name and life history are out there. Post anonymously about general topics if you like, and I can see how that would be fine; but if you take off the gloves and go after the actions or statements or background of a particular person whose name you throw out there, your mask needs to come off, too.

As for this: "There is very good reason for seminarians to be anonymous in their comments because they can face tremendous consequences for speaking the truth." I would think that seminarians, especially, would be learning by the example of Christ how important is is to "face tremendous consequences for speaking the truth." Anonymity for fear of reprisal for speaking the truth may be a very human and understandable behavior, but I wonder if we should be giving it the pass that we do.

Spirit of Vatican II

Wiggle room -- yes, the reference to deep-seated tendencies has already prompted a huge industry of interpretation.

I see a rush by bishops to interpret the document as directed not at gays but at those who would have trouble with celibacy. Dreadnought (John Heard) has been arguing for months that the document is only aimed at the sex-obsessed, not at your ordinary pious gay seminarian. Such a liberal interpretation was also suggested by Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor in his rebuttal of Bp Gene Robinson's criticism of the document as "vile".

In fact, the bishops who are coming forward with a preemptive interpretation ensuring that the document will merely reaffirm the status quo. The Vatican has wittingly or unwittingly left a loophole that will become a wide door through which thousands of gay seminarians will proceed in peace as hitherto! Even if the Vatican issues a further instruction excluding the liberal interpretation embraced by the first bishops to speak up and by yourself it may come too late.

Actually I have a sneaking admiration for their chutzpah! It recalls the daring interpretation of Humanae Vitae offered by the Canadian Bishops' Conference in 1968.

Now let us get to work providing the same interpretation of such documents as Persona Humana and the 1986 Halloween Letter. We already know that in pastoral practice gay couples are recognized as the best that given individuals may be able to do in their particular circumstances.

Let's scotch that "objective disorder" stuff (probably a mistranslation anyway, opines the brave Dreadnought!) by saying that of course it does not refer to homosexuality at all but only to people who have other disorders such as sexual compulsions.

Why not go the whole hog and say that since the church teaches the goodness of ordered natural desire it also teaches the goodness of homosexual attraction and in no way sees it as disordered.

Of course you could be sacked from teaching moral theology for saying any such thing.

I foresee that this is exactly how the church will change its teaching and save face at the same time.

Patrick Rothwell

Jimmy,

I think that this is dead-on. I would only add that a person who posits the existence of an octopus-like murderous "lavender mafia" on the basis of a loner freak priest in cold Duluth has good reason to remain anonymous. Not because he is serious danger of wearing concrete shoes, mind you, but because he himself knows that his reaction is a rather paranoid one.

Rich Leonardi

If what you say is true, then why not refer to the "cover-up" clergy as the "Pederast Protection Patrol"

You say toMAYto he says toMAHto. Perhaps his point was that the ones doing the covering-up were homosexuals too, and that they had their own vices to protect. Your alliterative moniker doesn't convey that.

As someone else observed, it is amusing that the only time a handful of you show up is to throw stones at those who point out the obvious about "The Situation."

Jeff

As for JimmyMac:

You know, I'm the first one to attack the anti-doctrines about how homosexuality is perfectly fine and it's "phobic" (inane, discussion-stifling suffix!) to see anything wrong with the practice or the inclination.

But when it comes to dealing with individuals--even strident ones--who bear the brunt both of their own inclination and the inevitable reactions to it, I would very much favor restraint and kindness. The same documents that we "homophobes" rely on to make our point, also remind us that we are not to push people out into the cold and shut the door. We are to recognize that homosexuals SUFFER (even if they sometimes dramatize it) and are to treat them with UNDERSTANDING and RESPECT.

I rather like Jimmy Mac, though I'm sure he considers me some sort of fascist pig. I especially like him when he climbs down off his high horse and consdescends to talk, even if it's just about the difficulties of his own life.

Jeff

As for JimmyMac:

You know, I'm the first one to attack the anti-doctrines about how homosexuality is perfectly fine and it's "phobic" (inane, discussion-stifling suffix!) to see anything wrong with the practice or the inclination.

But when it comes to dealing with individuals--even strident ones--who bear the brunt both of their own inclination and the inevitable reactions to it, I would very much favor restraint and kindness. The same documents that we "homophobes" rely on to make our point, also remind us that we are not to push people out into the cold and shut the door. We are to recognize that homosexuals SUFFER (even if they sometimes dramatize it) and are to treat them with UNDERSTANDING and RESPECT.

I rather like Jimmy Mac, though I'm sure he considers me some sort of fascist pig. I especially like him when he climbs down off his high horse and consdescends to talk, even if it's just about the difficulties of his own life.

pablo

Hasn't Father Andrew Greeley acknowledged the existence of the Lavender Mafia, and said that they have gone as far as murder to protect themselves? I guess that makes him part of the evil right wing fox news conspiracy too?

Face the facts, everyone knows about the Lavender Mafia. The only people who deny that are those blinded by the gay rights ideology. And if they've have killed to protect their secrecy, well, if I was a seminarian then I would be posting anonymously too.

reluctant penitent

'§2. A person who does this against a bishop incurs a latae sententiae interdict and, if he is a cleric, also a latae sententiae suspension.'

What if:

1. A Bishop is attempting to assasinate the Pope or another Bishop?

2. A Bishop is attempting to rape or kill you or someone else?

3. A Bishop is about to detonate a nuclear weapon and destroy a city?

4. The Bishop is about to commit suicide?

Surely the above law admits of some exceptions.

reluctant penitent

Or let's say that you are a police officer arresting a Bishop for some crime--DUI, for instance. If the Bishop resists arrest and you are a Catholic police officer, do you incur a 'latae sententiae interdict' if you use force to put handcuffs on the Bishop?

Spirit of Vatican II

The document does not define "deep-seated homosexual tendencies," and the meaning was debated yesterday.

"The Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things, a conservative journal about religion and public life, said the Vatican was referring to "dominant or exclusive same-sex desires." Father Bretzke, at the University of San Francisco, said the Vatican meant "activities" like frequenting gay bath houses or bars, or looking at Internet pornography."

Guess poor Neuhaus hasn't yet learned what Catholicism is really life -- the subtle arts of interpretation required!

Chris Sullivan

Yeah, the apparantly undefined "deep-seated homosexual tendencies" seems to be a problem with the text.

I mean, a tendency can be mild and well controlled and pose no problems for a priest but still be "deep seated".

Maybe the wag who commented that the phrase "deep seated" ought not be used in a discussion of homosexuality actually had a point !

God Bless

michigancatholic

Grant, don't be obtuse. Homosexual inclinations are gravely disordered (CCC). Homosexual acts are mortal sins.

anon@chicagoarea.com

Patrick, there's nothing paranoid about it. Chicago and its surrounding areas have had some interesting moments, I am told.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.