Tuesday, February 26, 2013
CLAIRVOYANCY AND BALDERDASH!
Clairvoyant that I am, I stated that the pope's new title would be pope-emeritus. I was right as usual. He will be referred to as His Holiness, Benedict XVI and will wear the white cassock but not the shoes of the fisherman.
I've listened to some of the liberal press's reporting on the scandals and they report rumor and hearsay as though it was fact and CNN even took as gospel truth a former Dominican priest who has been actively gay for the past 25 years who stated that more than half of the clergy in the Catholic Church are actively gay or homosexual. Did she ask for sociological data? Was there a truthful survey that discovered the facts? So, a former priest who is actively homosexual states something and it fits the agenda of CNN in terms of gay rights and gay marriage and reports it as true. Such lousy reporting!
We have to keep in mind also the difference between moral teachings and pastoral practice. The moral teachings of the Church are absolute, more or less. However, when it comes to each bishop or religious order recruiting candidates for the priesthood, it is a pastoral decision as to whom will be accepted and eventually ordained. Heterosexual priests who feel called to celibacy sometimes fall and many have married. Was there a mistake in the screening process or did the candidate hide his true sexual needs an inability to live a chaste, celibate life? Who knows, we are all compromised and disordered due to Original sin and the temptation to concupiscence.
In the 1970's many bishops in consultation with psychologists (the same ones that told them that pedophiles and ephebophiles could be treated and returned to ministry) told them that they could accept homosexual men into the priesthood if they felt called to celibate chastity and gave evidence of an ability to live thusly. As vocation director from the mid 80's to the late 90's, I screened many homosexual applicants but soon discovered from simply asking the right questions that they were not and more than likely could not live a celibate life. I could not then recommend them to the bishop for acceptance. I must say, that at the time, I was open to considering a homosexual candidate or one with what is called "same sex attraction" based on workshops I went to and listening to psychologists who told us, as well as seminaries, that a same sex orientation should not automatically disqualify a man for consideration.
Let me add a caveat, I don't believe I ever referred to the bishop for acceptance into the seminary a man with same sex attractions and not out of prejudice, but simply because I knew that it would be profoundly challenging to them to be in an all male environment of the seminary and they realized it too.
But I ask you, the most well-intentioned celibate heterosexual and one who does have a calling to celibate chastity, would it be wise to send him to a seminary where (if this was the case and there is no such place) young women that candidate's age live in close quarters as men do in our seminaries? It would be quite foolish to put a heterosexual man, even if called to celibacy, in an all female environment such as in a seminary setting.
How much more for men with a same sex attraction living in an all male environment? In the 70's through the turn of the century, many bishops and vocation directors simply were naive or just down right stupid about human sexuality. We are now paying the price.
So much hinges on common sense and moving from naivete to reality.
With that said, though, I do know of priests who have same sex attraction who are very mature and live mature, celibate lives by the grace of God as do heterosexual men. It is the immature and arrested in psycho-sexual identity and development, either homosexual or heterosexual, that are the greatest threats to our young and not so young in terms of taking advantage of their position in the Church to harm the spiritual, moral and psychological health of those in their care.
Thus in reporting sex abuse, or sexual activity that might even be consensual, but nonetheless immoral, the media does so to undermine the truths of Scripture, Tradition and Natural law as though moral truths depends on people actually living it. Even if a bishop is guilty of adultery or fornication, if he teaches the truth with his words, he is teaching the truth even though his life may not do so.
So, I wonder if coloring book Catholics understand objective truth or do they think it should be based upon what people actually do regardless of Scripture, Tradition and Natural law?
But this is my point, the pro-gay media which is lobbying for same sex marriage and all the rest of it, thinks that just because there is hypocrisy in the Church about sexuality and acting out in one way or another that the Church needs to get with the secular agenda.
Balderdash! I say and I suspect the next pope will say the same thing, or rather, I know he will say the same thing, clairvoyant that I am.