For my health

I have deliberately avoided reading Andrew Sullivan over the past few days (well...actually for weeks), but Mark Shea is ably on the case. But you probably already knew that.

Patrick O'Hannigan responds to Sullivan in the Spectator

Context alone cannot explain Sullivan's spleen, which is also fueled by fear and illogic. To react the way he's doing, you have to reduce personhood in all its glorious complexity to nothing more than sexual orientation. You also have to libel both the dead and the living by suggesting that any number of Catholic priests were and are dedicated solely to homosexual activism. Pretend, if you can, that Fr. Judge was killed at a gay rights rally on the steps of Saint Patrick's Cathedral. Forget his heroism and his much-loved ministry as a fire department chaplain. Forget that Pope John Paul II accepted the posthumous gift of Fr. Judge's fire helmet at a ceremony in the Vatican. And forget that Christian refusal to endorse homosexual activity goes back at least as far as Saint Paul's first-century letters to the young church, which themselves echo parts of Leviticus and Genesis.

You'll need professional help, but if you can swim past the Shrieking Eels and scale the Cliffs of Insanity, you may begin to approach the operatic (inconceivable?) heights from which Sullivan and like-minded columnists heap fire and rain on the head of a well-known German Shepherd. If you then suppose, as Sullivan does, that you're swordsman enough to "do him left-handed," then my advice to you is what Dread Pirate Roberts told Inigo Montoya: Get used to disappointment.

And I notice in Shea's latest response he apologizes to Sullivan for mischaracterizing him. Something Sullivan has never, ever done to any of us whose views he has publicly manipulated and mischaracterized.

Comments

[Victor Morton]

Well, one Ratzingerite looks very much like another ...

[Whitcomb]

For anyone who's interested, Andrew Sullivan has filed a reply to Mark Shea. It's pretty good.

Something tells me that this controversy will evolve into a Catholic version of "don't ask, don't tell." Bishops will continue to approve men, straight or gay, for the priesthood on the basis of what we can hope is their informed judgment on the character of those presenting themselves for holy orders. So will seminary rectors. Sometimes they'll make the wrong call, but there's no avoiding that.

The celibacy rule applies to all who wish to become Roman Catholic priests (except, of course, for married Anglican/Episcopal priests who convert to the faith. But that's another story.) If these men are profoundly committed to leading lives of celibacy, their sexual orientation should not matter.

What we can't tolerate, and what I would like to see the pope directly address, are the priests who raped and molested children.

It was said by someone on this blog (I think) that since 70 percent or more of American Catholics don't follow the church's teachings on sexuality, gay priests are the inevitable result of this massive dissent. The inference I drew from this comment was that most Catholics, even the married ones with kids, are unrepentant libertines. Never mind that we had gay priests long before Humanae Vitae was issued.

I suspect that the average Catholic in the pew doesn't care if his parish priest is gay. I'd also wager that the average Catholic in the pew is uncomfortable with homosexuality.
But that same congregant may well have a brother, sister, son, daughter, parent, uncle, aunt, cousin, friend or aquaintance who is gay. So I doubt that any pronouncement from the Vatican on homosexuality or gay priests will trump the bonds of family and friendship.

[bernie dehler]

Yes, hard to say whether parishiners will care or not. we'll soon find out as the news spreads.

…Bernie
http://fgn.typepad.com/

[Henry]

Andrew gives an excellent response to Mark's pompous rant at andrewsullivan.com. Oh, and Amy -- grow up, would you? He was right on the money about your NYT article, it was spineless. Quick licking your wounds and grow up.

[Amy]

Henry:

Okay! Thanks for changing my life.

Sincerely,

Amy

[Tom Haessler]

Henry,

Amy, spineless? Get real, dude! The woman who exposed that fradulent Brown guy who's laughing all the way to the bank?

Tom Haessler

[saint]

Sullivan? Not Andrew Sullivan!

[New Orleanian]

My initial interpretation of the New York Times article was that Amy was deliberately offering a tepid, inadequate defense as an implicit critique. After all, a defense which solely relies on the claim that something is Church teaching omits the demand of personal integrity to try to discern whether the teaching itself is morally right.

Perahps, I over-interpreted Amy's position.

[New Orleanian]

Taint,

That's Pee Wee Herman's mugshot. Do your homework.

[Mark Shea]

Being the 800 pound gorilla of the blogosphere means never having to say you're sorry, Amy. That's for the wee folk.

[New Orleanian]

I distinctly remember that Andrew Sullivan once defended and praised Cardinal Ratzinger and his writings on the subject of homosexuality. While Andrew did not agree with them, he assumed that Cardinal Ratzinger was sincerely Christian in his approach. However, the documents from the CDF became steadily more vicious, cynical, and dishonest. The 1990 letter on legislative proposals regarding civil equality for homosexuals was a definite turning point, a clear betrayal of homosexuals as human beings. After crying a few crocodile tears about "unjust discrimination" it then went on to justify diascrimination in housing, employment, military service, education, and insurance. Ultimately, it blamed anti-gay murder on gays themselves. This claim was a clear echo of the Levitican curse for homosexual sex, "They shall be put to death and their blood shall be upon them." The difference is that the jews only allowed such death sentences after a trial. Cardinal Ratzinger elevated the mob to the roles of judge and executioner.

Now, the official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano has an article that claims that homosexuality can destabilize societies. One has to consider the source in reading this. After all, L'Osservatore Romano endorse the force relocation of jews to concentration camps because "decent Christians wouldn't want to live among Jews." Nevertheless, one has to wonder about a Pontiff who elevates a murderous mob to the position of an agent of Divine Will yet allows his representatives to claim that the victims are destabilizing society.
One also has to wonder why people of faith lack the integrity or sanity to realize that in our Age of Holy Terror religion itself, as opposed to faith, is destabilizing our world.

[JP]

"Nevertheless, one has to wonder about a Pontiff who elevates a murderous mob to the position of an agent of Divine Will yet allows his representatives to claim that the victims are destabilizing society.
One also has to wonder why people of faith lack the integrity or sanity to realize that in our Age of Holy Terror religion itself, as opposed to faith, is destabilizing our world."

So, are you equating the treatment of homosexuals today with that of the Shoah?

[New Orleanian]

No, why would I make such a comparison? I don't need to. The Church wasn't directly responsible for the Shoah. Most concentration camp commandants weren't priests.

L'Osservatore Romano has a reputation for over-the-top bigotted journalism. Therefore, what it has to say is always taken with more than a grain of salt.

I would, however, call Benedict XVI's policies an anti-gay pogrom. I wouldn't be particularly bothered by a gay priest ban. I am disgusted by the justification. I am concerned with what this teaches young people since I've been in this fight since I was 12 (and a virgin even though I attended a Jesuit school).

[New Orleanian]

JP,

I see the reason for your confusion. I'm comparing the Pope to a muslim terrorist. Happy to clear that up.

[paul]

That's Pee Wee Herman's mugshot. Do your homework.

How very perceptive of you. Of course, with your great gift of perception, you also must realize that was satire. Right?

[New Orleanian]

JP, lest you think the comparison is over-the-top, I'll justify it. A few months ago the Vatican once again asserted that the Sodom libel is about homosexuality as opposed to same sex rape. So, if the Pope want's to compare me to a rapist, I am perfectly justified in comparing him to a terrorist.

[Glenn Juday]

Little else is needed to confirm the Church's teaching that homosexuality is an objective disorder is correct than the rhetorical excesses, theatrical verbal dramatics, and dizzying logical inconsistency of its partisans. And despite the obvious damage to their purported case that it is all quite normal, they just can’t seem to stop themselves from setting up the demonstration again and again and again.

[New Orleanian]

Glenn,

You might want to demonstrate what you consider illogic. This should be particularly amusing coming from someone whose scientific education is in forrestry; or, perhaps you call it "forrestry science."

By the way, in past discussions your arguments with me have been based on pure rhetoric with no attempt made at logic.

Moreover, homosexual logicians and philosophers from the Greeks to Turing made computing possible. Doubtless, your forrestry education didn't include studies of formal logic or its history.

[matt]

Andrew Sullivan is not a Roman Catholic. He has traded in his Catholicity for his penchant for sodomy, his Concupiscence is now his religion.

Andrew Sullivan has made his choice, and he now throughs the stereotypical hissy fit and dramatics when the Catholic religion will not conform to his sin.

[frank sales]

New O,

I can't be bothered to look it up, but dollars to donuts L'Osservatore Romano was talking about the homosexual agenda ie "gay marriage" as destabilizing society. And any fair minded person would accept that as a legitimate viewpoint, even if they disagree with it.

[Susan Peterson]

You know, I think only a few people object to there ever being any homosexual priests at all, ever. While there are general arguments which make sense about this orientation being a disorder and involving affectional immaturity, and theologically tinged arguments about spiritual fatherhood, in practice, some men with same sex attraction are able to understand this as a part of their psychological "given" which is perhaps not ideal but which doesn't make them a bad person, and are able to keep these feelings of sexual attraction from being at the center of their self identity. Perhaps the fact that they have SSA in some way affects their relationships to men and women in their ministry, in some way affects how they carry out that ministry. But there are so many styles of being a priest and such varied ministries for priests, and, really, such a wide range of acceptable styles of human interaction, that practically, it can work out fine. There are a lot of ways that heterosexuals can be "affectively immature" as well, after all, and all of our priests are not going to be 100% certified totally emotionally healthy all the time.

The problem is when the norm for priestly life and behavior is not a heterosexual norm, when there is a "gay culture" in the priesthood. From what we hear, apparently this is so in a lot of places. I don't believe Catholics want their priests to say "Im gay." They don't want them to talk, walk, or dress like stereotypical homosexuals. They don't want all of their priests to be men who can't imagine being in love with a woman or being the father of a family. They don't want their priests to be part of a homosexual clique. Even if these "gay" priests are not openly unchaste, they don't want them to be emotionally entangled with other men in relationships charged with sexual desire and romantic attachment rather than men with strong friendships with other men and also friendships with couples and attachments to families. The existance of such a culture is going to make it much harder even for our hypothetical very well integrated man with SSA to keep that from taking over his thoughts and feelings.

This document is an attempt to break up and prevent the continuation of the gay culture in the priesthood. Those who want to interpret it loosely seem to think that there is really nothing wrong with that gay culture as long as no one is actually "having sex." Hearing those interpretations makes me think that nothing is really going to change.

Susan Peterson

[Glenn Juday]

Dear New Orleanian,

Well, it's worse than you think. In addition to working in a low-prestige academic field and neglecting to mention that individuals affected with the homosexual condition (a much greater set than partisans of homosexuality) include among their ranks gifted intellects - in addition to all that, I have very real faults too.

There - it's out in the open now. I have committed sins in the past, and I'm afraid that despite my best efforts, I can't give a guarantee that I won't in the future.

You are quite correct that I have not formally studied logic within the framework of contemporary philosophy. Of that I am guilty. In my defense, may I be permitted to say that in order to reach valid conclusions in my research I am required to apply logic against the harsh test of reality? Still, I must admit that it’s only an applied use of the thing.

I can say that I associate with people smarter than I am, and I try to associate with people holier than I am. I usually benefit from doing so. On the other hand, I am quite at peace with my humble origins, limited status, and am resigned to my constant need for spiritual improvement. If my modest background or the status of my work counts as far as the validity of my comments or observations go, I agree that it should probably count against me.

[Joseph D'Hippolito]

What we can't tolerate, and what I would like to see the pope directly address, are the priests who raped and molested children.

The Tampa Bay Devil Rays will win the World Series before any Pope develops the testicular fortitude to do just that (or confront the bishops who enabled them). JPII, unfortunately, didn't have it.

After reading stories about the "lavender Mafia," the gay orgies at some seminaries, let alone the clerical abuse crisis, I've developed an intolerance for homosexuals in the clergy. Rome, however, has yet to do so. When a bishop of a major see gets publically reprimaned for blatant homosexual behavior (let alone expelled), then I'll take notice.

Too many of you on these threads are infatuated with words as opposed to action. What do you think pleases God more?

And I notice in Shea's latest response he apologizes to Sullivan for mischaracterizing him.

When Shea makes a practice of eschewing such mischaracterizations, in which he indulges as a matter of course, let alone apologizes for them (which he rarely does), then he'll be worthy of commendation.

[Maclin Horton]

I used to read Sullivan fairly regularly but he kind of went around the bend a year or so ago. Seems to me that the key to understanding his position is that he starts with the axiom that disapproval of homosexual activity is, morally speaking, exactly the same thing as racism. From that point of view, "hate the sin but love the sinner" is nonsense--it's like saying "hate African-ness but love the African."

He's not interested in discussing that axiom and at the time I quit reading him didn't even seem willing to grant that it could be questioned in good faith.

[Maclin Horton]

In other words, dialogue is not possible.

[cathy]

me - I got a kick out of the references to the movie The Princess Bride in the post -thanks.

[Mark Shea]

Joe:

Some days you are simply beyond parody. Thanks for the comic break in my day!

[Victor Morton]

joo keel my fadher. preepair to die.

[Orthodox Catholic]

I wish the document had addressed lisps.