There is another survey, flawed or not, that suggests that younger priests today, and I consider young to be in your entire 40’s and maybe 50’s, are more orthodox than their heterodox laity.
Is that fair to the laity, to call them all liberal/heterodox? Well, we know that many Catholics to include clergy, think that they have sources to support their heterodoxy, like sociology, Oprah Winfrey, Joy Bayhar, Whoopi Goldberg and the like.
They believe, too, that simply believing something makes it true, whether or not Scripture, Tradition and the 2000 year Magisterium of the Church supports what they personally believe.
They also believe that if they talk about it enough and convince more people to embrace their heterodoxy, simply having more people believe what is a lie will make it true.
But let’s get back to the survey. I suspect younger priests are more orthodox. Why would a heterodox/liberal want to go to the seminary, make a pledge of lifelong celibacy and give up so many heterodox freedoms?
What heterodox dioceses and religious orders have an abundance of vocations????
And under Pope Francis, we have seen a decline in vocations even of the orthodox because of the confusion and anger he hs engendered in the orthodox Catholics of the world. But there is not an increase in young people who love liberal, heterodoxy.
Read the article:
25 comments:
The statement compares two different populations: the young priests and the general congregations. The general congregations are older on the mean in any case, but certainly older if they reflect the general population of the nation and even more so if they reflect the population that identifies as religious or even that attend Mass. The question this implies follows is, “is the younger Mass attending population more orthodox?”
I cannot but help think of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) and what has become of them. Once the largest of all religious orders, they were also the most demanding in regard to education and years of preparation and they were distinguished by a special oath of loyalty to the pope. They were the "shock troops" of the Church. Well, once they were.
Now they have lost about half of their membership. While there are certainly a number of orthodox Jesuits still around, the order is far more widely known as a liberal bulwark, who, under popes like John Paul II or Benedict XVI, were more likely to be critical of the pontiff or even undermine him. Now, one of their own is the pontiff and he certainly fits the bill of what that order has become.
The quote from That 70's Priest, Thomas Reese says more than he realizes:
"“indoctrinated into total loyalty to the pope” who then “so easily dropped this loyalty when a new pope was elected…now they are only loyal to the pope if he agrees with them,”
"Indoctrinated" has become a bad word, equivalent to "brainwashed" for many. But it contains the key word "doctrine". The orthodox accept the unchangeable DOCTRINE of the Church, so calling those who reject it "heterodox" is just objectively noting the difference. Why should we expect anything different today than a laity that is overwhelmingly heterodox? After Vatican II, the majesty of God, the gravity of sin all but disappeared from the Catholic school classroom or catechism class. RCIA candidates and Catholic school students learned ONLY that "Jesus is your friend and brother". People stopped going to Confession and the jargon of "reconciliation" just sounded (and still sounds) pretentious. Pope Paul appointed more heterodox bishops and stopped disciplining them, so by the time John Paul II came along, he found he COULDN'T do anything to fix the mess his predecessor left him. Jesuits priests were members of Congress, for heaven'm sake sake with a voting record that would make Tom Hayden proud. To this day, the average Catholic cannot concern himself with saving his soul, but instead looks to the Church as a social service agency.
Jump to the 1980's: The older, stalwart priests are retiring out. The are steadily being replaced by softer, effeminate young priests with--as the saying goes--limp wrists and noticeable lisps. The sheer lack of masculinity repulses normal young men from pursuing vocations. By 2002 the chickens came home to roost with the exposure of the sex abuse shenanigans being managed by so many corrupt chanceries. And our bishops wonder why so many parents want to home school?
It doesn't matter what the laity thinks. The corrupted postconciliar Church made this happen. Their liberal homosexualized vision of the Church imploded on them and the faithful remnant went underground in rejection of their scheme. Now that the kids raised this way have grown to adulthood, they will be the ones who save the Church from its own failure.
And to answer Father Reese: No. Orthodox young Catholics are loyal to all their popes. And they are the loyal opposition to the pope NOT when they disagree with him, but when HE disagrees with the teachings, laws and Traditions of the Church.
I cannot but help think of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) and what has become of them. Once the largest of all religious orders, they were also the most demanding in regard to education and years of preparation and they were distinguished by a special oath of loyalty to the pope. They were the "shock troops" of the Church. Well, once they were.
Now they have lost about half of their membership. While there are certainly a number of orthodox Jesuits still around, the order is far more widely known as a liberal bulwark, who, under popes like John Paul II or Benedict XVI, were more likely to be critical of the pontiff or even undermine him. Now, one of their own is the pontiff and he certainly fits the bill of what that order has become.
The quote from That 70's Priest, Thomas Reese says more than he realizes:
"“indoctrinated into total loyalty to the pope” who then “so easily dropped this loyalty when a new pope was elected…now they are only loyal to the pope if he agrees with them,”
"Indoctrinated" has become a bad word, equivalent to "brainwashed" for many. But it contains the key word "doctrine". The orthodox accept the unchangeable DOCTRINE of the Church, so calling those who reject it "heterodox" is just objectively noting the difference. Why should we expect anything different today than a laity that is overwhelmingly heterodox? After Vatican II, the majesty of God, the gravity of sin all but disappeared from the Catholic school classroom or catechism class. RCIA candidates and Catholic school students learned ONLY that "Jesus is your friend and brother". People stopped going to Confession and the jargon of "reconciliation" just sounded (and still sounds) pretentious. Pope Paul appointed more heterodox bishops and stopped disciplining them, so by the time John Paul II came along, he found he COULDN'T do anything to fix the mess his predecessor left him. Jesuits priests were members of Congress, for heaven'm sake sake with a voting record that would make Tom Hayden proud. To this day, the average Catholic cannot concern himself with saving his soul, but instead looks to the Church as a social service agency.
Jump to the 1980's: The older, stalwart priests are retiring out. The are steadily being replaced by softer, effeminate young priests with--as the saying goes--limp wrists and noticeable lisps. The sheer lack of masculinity repulses normal young men from pursuing vocations. By 2002 the chickens came home to roost with the exposure of the sex abuse shenanigans being managed by so many corrupt chanceries. And our bishops wonder why so many parents want to home school?
It doesn't matter what the laity thinks. The corrupted postconciliar Church made this happen. Their liberal homosexualized vision of the Church imploded on them and the faithful remnant went underground in rejection of their scheme. Now that the kids raised this way have grown to adulthood, they will be the ones who save the Church from its own failure.
Reese doesn't get it. Young orthodox Catholics don't withdraw their loyalty because they disagree with the pope. They are loyal to what the Catholic Church is supposed to be and when popes tamper with it, they loyally oppose him. Catholics don't worship a pope. We worship God and we support the Church Jesus left us.
No, next question
"The are steadily being replaced by softer, effeminate young priests with--as the saying goes--limp wrists and noticeable lisps."
This says so much more about the poster than anyone else.
Jerome Merwick,
Accurate summary of the post-Conciliar Church. A large, institutional Church is close to near collapse but that “New Springtime” is just around the corner. If you want a laugh go to a tyical women’s religious order website and you will get some real howlers. Photos of a bunch of white haired ladies in various forms of secular apparel screeching about social justice and claiming how vibrant the order is! Mass delusion. Then go to the Dominicans of Nashville. Young women in full habits engaged in teaching, etc. But like the TLM, this order is the “problem!”
Fr K,
Look in the mirror
Father Kavanaugh,
It would be nice if you agreed with me, but I make no apologies for by revulsion at homosexuality, especially in the priesthood. Any normal male is repulsed by the idea of same-sex intimacy and/or attraction and I'm not bowing the the zeitgeist on this issue. Further, it is a matter of record that homosexual agitprop groups exercised threats and intimidation to pressure the American Psychiatric Association into removing homosexuality as a disorder from the DSM.
I am not the only one who feels this way. I got fed up years ago with watching my local church in another diocese slowly turn in to a faggotorium. Jesus was a man, and he was masculine. A priest willingly sacrifices the satisfaction of married life and children to be a father to everyone. The "gay" man just provides what he thinks is a cover for himself and joins a cadre of other men, where he hopes their secrets will stay safe--at least they used to. The average gay man today has learned to feel no shame, but when they stand before God, they will.
The soft bunch of disordered men I've seen take over parishes over the years all had another thing in common: They stopped teaching about sin. There have always been disordered men in the priesthood, but it shot through the roof in the 60's 70's and 80's and Michael Rose beautifully explained how it happened in his book.
I don't "hate" homosexuals. I am not "homophobic' because only a fool would be scared of them. I've had a lot of friends and acquaintances over the years who are homosexuals, male and female. I see no point in trying to make them hate themselves or treating them with contempt. I just don't treat their "lifestyle" with approval.
I've seen a woman deprived of the husband and father she deserved to keep because the pastor of her parish had a secret affair with him, then paid hush money from the diocese after the divorce to keep her from talking. I've learned about priests who had their own love nest across county lines and showed up on Sundays when needed, then left everything to the parish bureaucracy for the rest of the week. I've been privy to information about priests who actually engaged in sex acts in the sacristy right before offering Mass. I've watched priests forced into resignation when it finally became public knowledge about their extravagant gay vacations, their payoffs of gay lovers or their appetite for disordered porn discovered by the housekeeper (or FBI surveillance). And right now, our Church has all these bishops OBSESSESD with being more "welcoming" to the LGBT people, when so many other issues, far more pressing, are plaguing our Church and our world.
If you take offense at my remarks, then it may just say something more about you. If it's what I fear it might be, please don't tell me. I don't want to know.
I don't think I had my permission turned on, so FYI, that long, verbose defense of my position on homosexuality was mine.
Jerome Merwick
That was brilliant. All this push in the Church to bless “Sad” unions is just a rouse to gain approval for their own sinful lives. I may write to project Veritas and suggest they start following certain members of our hierarchy around at night. Maybe they can do the job Rome refuses to do! Stay tuned.
Jerome - You can feel as much revulsion as you want for those you deem less than "manly," whatever that means. But your eager willingness to make unsubstantiated accusations against men in the seminary and priesthood is what I find sadly troubling.
How do you know if a man is "light in the loafers," or as a friend of my mother's used to say, "fancy?" Is it because he prefers a nice cote du Rhone instead of a shot of rot-gut whiskey? Is it because he would rather listen to a Bach cantata instead of Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA"? Maybe it is because he would prefer to read a book of literary criticism rather than sit in the cold muck in a duck blind in Montana in late December.
I am beginning to think that these are the men you conclude are effeminate. I also conclude that this is the basis for your revulsion of the more sophisticated in the population. And it has nothing to do with the man's sexual orientation.
And I wonder if you hold and express similar revulsion for a political candidate who speaks and writes openly about his sexual deviance, telling people he like to grab married women by the genitals. Would you speak with such vehemence about a political figure who was renowned for his bald-faced lies? I doubt it.
By the way, many of us in the priesthood are far more well-acquainted with the sad failings of our brothers than you may have been "privy" to. And I will say with certainly that we have felt the sting of their sins in ways you never will.
One more thing, Jerome. Just to put your mind at ease, I'm not drinking a cote du rhone and listening to Bach this evening. Oh no, that's not me...
I'm drinking a glass of 2020 Chateau Moulinat Bordeaux, and Telemann's Concertos for woodwind instruments, featuring the Camerata Koln is on the CD player.
Cheers!
I wonder what are the actual numbers of home-schooled young men, among these new seminarians?
I am not sure if the following was a made up joke (with a basis in reality) or really 100 per actually happened but it is claimed among Catholics in our town that a devout Catholic father of 7 decided it was time to make the sacrifices to homeschool his children when his 10 year old son, who attended a local Catholic school, informed him:
If you wear a condor on your peanuts, you can’t get AIDS.
I wonder how many vocations have been encouraged by such texts on the Catholic Church that have been sitting on shelves in the library at my daughters’ private Catholic school since 1990 - the last 33 years:
“…..the root cause of this crisis, it appears, is the question of the priest’s identity.
Before THE Council the answer was easy. Most Catholic priests would have readily accepted Cardinal Suhard’s famous definition given in his book “Priests among Men” : ‘He is not a lay person vested with a temporal function but a man set apart from the faithful, endowed by God with transcendent powers and marked with a consecrating character which sets him apart, makes him at once a pontiff and head in the community of the baptised.’
The changes since THE Council, however, have called into question all three basic points of this definition: the sacred character of the priest, his apartness, and his unique powers.
First, the sacredness attached to the very person of the priest is now seen as a historical development that is unsupported by the data of the New Testament, and even an actual hindrance to the exercise of the ministry in a world that no longer thinks in terms of the sacred and the profane as two distinct realms.
Second, THE Council, by emphasising the nature of the Church as the whole faith community, set in motion a democratic trend that makes the old caste system of the priesthood seem medieval. Moreover, for various reasons the Church is becoming the affair of the personally committed rather than the born Catholic type. And hence there is no longer as much need for the priest to bear practically the whole burden of the Church’s mission - which takes away one of the main historical reasons for his being set apart.
Finally, his strictly cultic tasks - presiding at the Eucharist, administering the sacraments - have lost some of their capacity to make him set apart in view of THE Council’s affirmation that all the faithful participate in the priesthood of Christ and in view of the proposals to restructure the ministry to allow a greater variety…..”. And on and on…..
Today I read in the journal Quadrant that surveys in Canada and the USA and the UK are indicating that as many as 35 to 40 per cent of 16 to 21 year olds now identify as something in the various LGBTIQ+2+++ categories - if not as gay or lesbian than as non-binary, or gender queer or gender fluid etc…
The Western world must be going insane when children as young as 10 or 11 are claiming to be really “trans”, non-binary or even pansexual (which is apparently defined as having sexual and or romantic attraction to people regardless of sex or gender identity)…..
How can this be happening without teachers or parents or social media celebrities pumping this nonsense into childrens’ heads?
I am not surprised that some cities and states in the West have seen up to a 700 per cent increase in homeschooling in recent years…
I am paraphrasing a bit here but the following is a quote from a conservative or perhaps just a moderate, sane journalist, who happens to be gay:
When a teacher or a parent say they have a child as young as 10 or 11 who claims to be non-binary, gender fluid or pansexual etc it is like an adult claiming to have a vegan cat - we know who is really making the lifestyle decisions - and it is not the poor child.
Regarding, the 10 year old boy, who explained to his parents:
“When you put a condor on your peanuts, you can’t get AIDS.”
How true to life was the English political comedy series “Yes, Minister”.
The Minister, Jim Hacker, is not a religious person in any way but the following lines of the Minister to his two top civil servants, Bernard and Sir Humphrey Appleby, are telling:
Re sex education in English schools, The Minister, Jim Hacker:
“I, like almost any father or parent, have no problem with children being taught the basic facts of life…….but really! Should children in our schools be taught details of homosexual technique ?! “
Re bishops: The Minister -
“It seems now in England that the standard bishop, Anglican or Catholic, needs to be both a socialite and a socialist.”
Sir Humphrey talking of an Anglican priest who actually insists on talking about God, sin and Christian morality:
“Don’t worry, Minister, that priest will never end up in the House of Lords to embarrass the government, with rare priests LIKE THAT it is always a case of : Long time no see”.
Paul - I am glad you are familiar with "Yes, Minister," and "Yes, Prime Minister." I think that series was THE best written, most clever, and funniest show ever on television. Of course, you have to appreciate dreadfully dry British humor to be taken in by it.
Of all the recurring gags, those invoolving missteps by Sir Humphrey are the cream of the crop. Do you know the one in which Sir Humphrey gets caught ON TAPE saying some very inappropriate things, only to have that tape fall into the hands of Bernard and Prime Minister Hacker?
Fr K is obfuscating again. He knows Jerome is not suggesting that cultured men are unmanly. From his writing style Jerome appears to be a very cultured man. Yet through faith and reason he is rejecting society’s and our hierarchy’s sick fascination with all things gay. Nice try but epic fail. Now tell us again why abortion is healthcare, a deeply important “concept” in the Party you vote for and it’s modern raison d’etre
Fr K cannot leave politics out of this so here goes:
He conveniently forgets that Bill Clinton brought oral sex into the national discussion along with a creative use for cigars and
The current grifter in the White House showered with his young daughter and swims in the nude to the discomfort of his female secret service staff and sniffs women’s hair
I think his need to do so is indicative of real deep seated personal issues he has not come to grips with. Sad
Maybe his bishop would enjoy reading his rantings here
Fr K,
Yes, I remember that episode.
My favourite episode though was when Jim Hacker, as Prime Minister, has to, in effect, choose a bishop (or formally - recommend a candidate to the Queen)...
Jim Hacker:
Humphrey, what's a Modernist in the Church of England?
Sir Humphrey Appleby:
Ah, well, the word "Modernist" is code for non-believer.
JH:
You mean an atheist?
Sir Humphrey:
No, Prime Minister. An atheist clergyman couldn't continue to draw his stipend. So when they stop believing in God, they call themselves Modernists.
JH:
How could the Church of England suggest an atheist as Bishop of Bury St Edmunds?
Sir Humphrey:
Well, very easily. The Church of England is primarily a social organisation,not a religious one.
Jim Hacker:
Is it?
Sir Humphrey:
Oh yes. It's part of the rich social fabric of this country. So bishops need to be the sort of chaps who speak properly and know which knife and fork to use. The sort of people one can look up to.....
Father Kavanaugh,
Without getting too revealing, I have always liked listening to classical music as well as blues, hard rock and jazz. I also like dressing nicely. I don't watch sports and I despise ridiculous displays of machoism. When I was in my late 20's and still not married, my parents informed me that some people had "questions" about me. Fair enough, but I used to just laugh.
Of course, you are right to denounce such stereotypes of homosexual men and I have been VERY hesistant to label priests as homosexual, in spite of what my remarks might suggest. But to suggest that a revulsion of same-sex attraction is limited to beer-swilling rednecks listening to C & W music (punishment to my ears) is indulging in stereotyping too.
I never wanted to believe ANY priest was sexually deviant, but when I began a job that involved investigating some of these things, police, attorneys, real estate records, accounts of former lovers and various other sources of information made much of my denial all too apparent. It also made me angry. I denied many of my suspicions for years because I really wanted to believe the best about these men and I began to understand the anger and betrayal so many parents felt--especially after a close friend's son attempted suicide years after he had been used by a long-deceased priest. The diocese treated her like SHE was the problem.
Of course there are men who speak with "that" affect who are not homosexuals. I once had a friend who fit that bill and I can remember arguing with my wife, insisting that he was not what she thought. Even after her married, she insisted it was a "cover". I always admired Liberace, because even though he was about as stereotypically homosexual as a man could appear, he always denied it. I think he did so because of his Catholic background and his sense that he didn't want to set a bad example.
If all of this sounds contradictory, it probably is. The ultimate contradiction is my defending priests against blanket claims that they are all child molesters. It infuriates me that you or one of your brothers have to suffer suspicion and even insults just for wearing the Roman collar, all because of the bad actions of a very small percentage of priests. Unfortunately, my former diocese had a LARGE percentage of that small percentage and, we have learned that many other dioceses do too. I am sure you and your fellow priests HAVE suffered for the sins of the bad priests in ways I never will understand, but I think have some small inkling.
Fr K,
You forgetting the sexual antics of the Kennedys, Bill Clinton, and Joe Biden. You are the epitome of “fairness.” People who live in glass houses should not throw stones!
I also neglected to mention that I do not hunt, nor do I own a gun, however I fully support Second Amendment rights within reasonable limitations. And while I have nothing against hunting, I think sitting in one of those "blinds" to mislead the poor animals hunted is poor sportsmanship. And Lee Greenwood's song? It makes me cringe, especially when played publicly to howling crowds at political rallies and amusement parks, yet I DO share his sentiment of desiring God's blessing upon our country.
Unfortunately, we seem to be begging God to punish us.
One more thing Father Kavanaugh,
You seemed to hint that you are something of a Bach enthusiast--as I am too, although I struggle with the cantatas--I'm more of an instrumental guy. Anyway, there are some fantastic recordings on the Archiv label of many of Bach's works performed on period instruments, especially those by the Musica Antigua of Cologne and the English Concert (under the able direction of the openly homosexual Trevor Pinnock--an extraordinary harpsichordist). I far prefer these recordings to the earlier recordings of Karl Richter. How about you?
Jerome - I'm an enthusiastic listener. I keep my collection arranged alphabetically by composer. I had a friend, a professional bassoonist, who was far more attuned (pun intended) to the intricacies of classical music than I. I asked once about how she arranged her recordings and she said she had a double system. Having many recordings of the same pieces of music, she told me they were catalogued by orchestra and by conductor. PFFFT!
Post a Comment