I like what Terry Mattingly called this post: An Anonymous Priest Walks Into a Newsroom, addressing the ethical questions behind the media's proliferation of the pained gay priest expressing his fears about the coming witchhunt and unwilling to go on record.
Now, I'll say one thing. Given the contempt unleashed even against men who describe themselves, not as "gay" but as being same-sex attracted, but still committed to a chaste live through Christ...I can understand the reticence. The insistence of reducing human beings to their temptations when it comes to this issue is disheartening. You all should really read David Morrison's book. Even if SSA is not your cross, the book is still a valuable spiritual read because it is an excellent primer in Catholic sexuality and besides, who among us is not tempted sometimes to define ourselves only in terms of our temptations and sins? What does it mean to be "saved" anyway, except that a Christian is no longer defined that way, but is, instead, defined as a new creature in Christ? That, I think, is a good way of thinking about what Paul says in Romans 6:
For sin is not to have any power over you, since you are not under the law but under grace.
I actually remember the exact moment I understood that passage. I was teaching a baptismal preparation class, and going over that chapter. I stood there, silent for a moment, looking quite strange to the young parents in the room, I'm sure. But they would have been silent, too, if they'd seen what was happening: chains fallling to the ground.
But anyway, back to TMatt's piece. Despite my understanding, I confess to being a little tired of this paradigm already. For most of these priests are not of the Courage school of thinking on this, frankly. They are not with the traditional Catholic program on this:
This is a story in which more of the Roman Catholics who want to overturn the teachings of their church on sexuality need to step forward and be quoted. We are already seeing waves of MSM stories that are built on anonymous quotes. The logic is natural. These men cannot speak without being punished. If we quote them on the record, we will be hurting their cause. Thus? What do you do?
No comments on this one because I'm going out of town and comments on this topic get vicious, fast.
