The Archdiocese of Baltimore, where I went to the major seminary in the 1970’s, has a very long document, newly released, on ministry to LGBTQ people. You can read it HERE.
It’s a good document and way too long. Way too long is the problem.
When in comes to ministry in the Church, just how many people do we reach with “special” ministries and communities? Not that many, in fact a small minority of those who actually attend Mass on Sunday.
As a priest and pastor, I always emphasized that every Catholic was required to attend Mass, under the penalty of mortal sin, btw, each and every Sunday and Holy Day of obligation. I did not say that unrepentant sinners were dispensed and that we would prefer that they not attend Mass.
Why are we categorizing sexual sins of differently oriented people? Can’t we all just be people and call sin, sin in a pleasant pastoral way? Adultery, fornication, sodomy and the various “philias” associated with sex are all sin, at least venial, and mortal if committed with the full consent of the will and with forethought and planning.
When sinners are called out for being sinners at Mass, that leads them to feel some guilt and then that leads them to repentance and confession, isn’t that a mature way of spiritual renewal and reform Each of us is in need on continual reform throughout out lives not just aspects of the institutional Church.
A homily should not be intended to offend people, sinner or saint. Pastoral skills are needed in preaching a good homily that points out sin. However, the 1970’s meme was that preachers should afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted. Maybe that’s the problem today, going back to the 70’s?
Most priests don’t have experience with specialized ministries to those with varying sexual orientations. They may, though, hear someone’s confession or offer spiritual and moral guidance to those who come to them for pastoral counseling. There is a skill that is needed here, which is not a science but an art and done better or worse depending on the priest or Catholic pastoral minister.
But let’s face, the majority of people to whom the Church minsters to, only want to come to Mass on Sunday, get their children baptized and want marriage in the Church. They might go to Confession regularly or not so regularly. The majority don’t want specialized ministries to their particular issues or peccadilloes.
They don’t want the Church meddling in their sex life on an individual basis, although they might not or might take offense to a homily that makes them feel guilty about what they do sexually.
Why aren’t there pastoral long, long long letters on the divorced and remarried, heterosexuals struggling with sexual sins and the like?
Why not treat all sinners and saints equally and not meddle specifically in their sex lives. Let them figure it out by teaching the truth in a pastoral way and let them know that they and they alone (along with Jesus Christ, their Advocate/lawyer) will stand at the judgement seat of God at their death and particular judgement. Treat Catholics who are adults as adults not children!
24 comments:
When the barn is burning down, don't you always use a garden hose to put it out? These folks are so out of touch with the needs of ordinary Catholics. Balkanizing the Church by sexual orientation is ridiculous and counterproductive. I suspect this is to comfort certain members of the clergy
I would assert that it all comes down to ideology, pervasive in the secular world, now becoming part of the religious.
I might also add virtue signaling as well. Should not an institution specifically acknowledge a group, regardless of type, said institution is deficient in the eyes of the modern world.
The objection by the Church in her inerrant teaching to homosexual acts is not just that they occur outside of marriage. ALL sexual acts outside of marriage are sinful. Sin is sin, no matter how it is committed. The homosexual act however itself is never open to the generation of new life. It can never under any circumstance be anything other than sinful. In the Catholic church, it can never be solemnized or sanctified in a sacramental union. While a married man and woman can engage in acts which are sinful, it is always present to them that they can avail themselves of an act which is not sinful and is therefor in conformance to what God intended and desires. For a sexual act to be in agreement with what God intended It must take place within a marriage (which must be between one man and one woman only) and it must be both unitive and procreative.
When homosexuals are in partnerships, Civil unions, or same-sex marriages, they cannot avoid bringing public scandal with them which compounds their sin, since by their observed relationship, their sinful actions can be reasonably inferred. There is a public dimension to those who are active practicing homosexuals, due to the proclaimed identity and proclivity of those who consider themselves such. So with homosexuality there is the attendant scandal and bad example which can influence and lead others from the path of holiness.
There is the hope for all of us that God in His mercy will consider mitigating factors in His judgement. Still, it is imperative that the Church exhorts all to practice the virtue of chastity, since whatever the subjective mitigating circumstances, the homosexual act and other sinful sexual acts are always objectively gravely wrong and so stand in opposition to the infinite Holiness of God. As Christians we should strive for personal holiness and examine ourselves as to what kind of actions we are to engage in to achieve this.
Would that we should be more concerned about what offends God, and not that by charitable correction and admonishment we might offend others. What offends God, He has made known to us, and so we have no excuse,since what he has revealed and made known to us is within the grasp of our understanding.
At the same time we should have confidence in the power and love of God to bring about the conversion that is necessary and that we should not in any way, by our words and actions, enable sinful behavior or cause those leading sinful lives to continue in their iniquity. I realize there are those who struggle with overcoming unvirtuous behavior and of course God knows this as well, but we should never resign ourselves to difficult circumstances as if there is no hope, but always having recourse to the Mercy of God through the power of prayer who is the One who can bring about change even when things seem beyond hope. We should encourage those who are struggling with sexual sins and those who know such persons, to pray to St. Mary Magdalen, St. Augustine, St St Angela of Foligno and so many other saints who contended with sin and temptation.
Salvation, meaning freedom from sin and union with God, includes becoming holy by the grace of God. Only in this way can we someday be united with our God in his Eternal Holiness.
Thanks George for this excellent comment. The anxiety many have is that Fr. James Martin SJ, the pope’s right hand man on mainstreaming the opposite of what you right is the trajectory of the pope’s synodal way.
George,
Beautifully written. You expressed the Church’s traditional teaching and rationale so well, you will be booted off of any Synod.
With so many perverts in the hierarchy and in Rome , I fear the worst.
Yes, thank you for your comment, George.
My only quibble with all this centers on your perfectly correct statement:
“Would that we should be more concerned about what offends God, and not that by charitable
correction and admonishment we might offend others. What offends God, He has made known
to us, and so we have no excuse, since what he has revealed and made known to us is within the
grasp of our understanding.”
Quite so. And it is about a lot more than sex. As I recall, the Ten Commandments, for example,
don’t only talk about sex. Nor do the Old Testament Prophets. And nor does Jesus. And yet
conversation of moral questions on this Blog seems centrally focused on sex (or sex-related
matters such as abortion). Why don’t we talk more about the many other things that offend God?
Moreover, even when we do address other matters, somehow sex almost always gets dragged
into it too. It seems very unbalanced to me. One has to wonder whether we eschew some of these
other topics because it might offend some followers of this Blog with certain strong political
commitments or at least make them uncomfortable, whereas talking about sex-related matters
lines up with those commitments?
All that said, I agree it is a good document. Does it only seem long because our attention span has become so short?
Father McDonald, I hope that the following isn't too off topic here. The following news article has a connection to homosexuality (according, at least, to various folks).
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops released the 2022 Annual Report on the Implementation of the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People.
Here are excerpts from Bill Donohue's (Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights) related commentary:
https://www.catholicleague.org/clergy-sexual-abuse-disappearing/
"The clergy sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic Church has long been over and now it is practically non-existent. To be sure, there continues to be a tiny fraction of the clergy who are offenders, but it has long since been of the magnitude of a scandal."
"But don’t look to the media to tell you this. And don’t take my word for it—just consult the data."
"On p. 41 of the recently released 2022 Annual Report on the Implementation of the “Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People,” it lists data on credible allegations against the clergy made between 2004 and 2022:
-- 2 percent occurred or began in the 2000s
-- 1 percent occurred or began in the 2010s
-- Less than 1 percent occurred or began between 2020 and 2022
"In short, contemporary news reports about priestly sexual abuse are almost always about alleged offenses that took place decades ago (the 1970s was the worst decade). Quite frankly, as we have known, and as this report makes plain, almost all the abusers are either dead or have been thrown out of ministry."
"The 2022 Annual Report considers allegations made between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2022.
"It found that there were 16 allegations made by minors during that time, seven of which were substantiated.
"That means that of the 52,387 members of the clergy (34,344 priests and 18,043 deacons), .013 percent of them had a substantiated allegation made against him.
"Importantly, in the first half of 2022, the number of allegations — (not allegations that have been substantiated) — was zero.
"There is no organization in the nation, where adults regularly interact with minors, which has a better record than this. This includes religious as well as secular institutions.
"The audit fielded allegations extending back to the 1930s. Almost all of the victims were male (82 percent of diocesan/eparchy priests, and 83 percent of religious order priests). Moreover, the majority of the victims were postpubescent (10 years of age and over).
"The conclusion should be obvious to those not living in a state of denial: most of the molestation was done by homosexuals, not pedophiles."
"When adult males have sex with postpubescent males, that is called homosexuality. The offending priest may consider himself not to be a homosexual, but that subjective opinion does not change the truth. He may consider himself to be a woman, but that has no bearing on reality."
"Credit must be given to Pope Benedict XVI who instituted a policy that discouraged men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” from applying to the priesthood."
"Fortunately, Pope Francis has continued this commonsensical policy."
"Together with the reforms established by the bishops in the United States, this explains why cases of molestation have crashed."
"This is good news. But for many reasons, those in and out of the Catholic Church, are reluctant to flag it. That’s too bad. We will."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
No matter how "good" this document is, it's just another symptom of a problem we aren't facing:
The most GENEROUS estimates on sexually disordered people seem to indicate that maybe 7.5 percent of the population is homosexual. Yet the way so many priest, bishops and cardinals focus on this and I mean NON-STOP, NEVER-GIVE-US-A-MOMENT'S-RELIEF FOCUS, you would think that 99 percent of us are.
This indicates something else--something really messed up. At least Bishop Bruskewitz had the guts to talk about it--albeit while met with chilling silence.
I think it's safe to say a large number of the laity are sick to death of listening to a bunch of effeminates talk about nothing else but their own problem and try to inflict their "solutions" on the rest of us.
I read the whole thing and found both good and bad aspect of it. Too many strawman arguments is one. But what set the tome was beginning with a quote from Francis that people are not defined by their sexuality..and then referring to LGBT people for the entire rest of the document. If one of my students wrote that, I'd penalize them.
Re: the declining reports of sexual predation of minors- the allegations usually surface years later, so lack of current reporting (good in itself) is not necessarily an indication that the problem is behind us. Of course, neither the Church nor the various state attorneys general are at all interested in clergy having sex with each other, or gay prostitutes or seminarians 18 or older.
I agree that it takes years for some victims to come forward with accusations. But with that said, today it is must more difficult for a predator to get away with what he is doing. Clergy and laity are far more aware of watching for this kind of behavior and calling it out. That was not the case in previous generations when this whole topic was taboo and if someone had concerns about a priest molesting a minor or worse, the one thinking that would have been accused of having a dirty mind. Priests were on pedestals and to make an accusation of this type toward a priest, especially a popular priest would not be tolerated. That is not the case today.
One of my concerns with MT’s elevation of the pope to such a high pedestal is that this kind of thing perpetuates abuse, be it spiritual, physical or sexual. There is a kind of spiritual abuse by this pope of Catholics who preferred the previous two papal magisteriums in good faith, who now are maligned by him when he calls them perverted, backwards and mentally ill. That is beyond his scope as pope and it is spiritual abuse when it is a stereotype and generalized to everyone who are so-called traditionalists.
Father McDonald said..."One of my concerns with MT’s elevation of the pope to such a high pedestal is that this kind of thing perpetuates abuse, be it spiritual, physical or sexual."
Father McDonald, I have followed Pope Benedict XVI's lead in that he granted his "unconditional reverence and obedience" to Pope Francis.
If my reverence for, as well as obedience to Pope Francis, has constituted my having placed His Holiness upon a pedestal, then I am happy to have joined Pope Benedict XVI in that regard.
Even following his departure from earth, Pope Benedict XVI, via his book that was published posthumously, heaped praise upon Pope Francis.
"At the end of my reflections, I want to thank Pope Francis for everything he does to constantly display the light of God, which, even today, has not faded. Thank you, Holy Father!"
May everybody join Pope Benedict XVI in granting "unconditional reverence and obedience" to Pope Francis.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Jerome Merwick,
You nailed it - it really is all about them.
Jerome Merwick,
Here is one commentators take on the Synods:
"Once again, this is not new. We have seen it all before. There will be calls for dialogue, inclusion, diversity, openness, parrhesia, and debate, until the desired results are reached and at that point all conversation will cease. The garage door will be closed and anyone who dissents from the neo-Montanist assertion that “God is doing a new thing” will be dismissed as bigots, reactionaries, rigid backwardists, and anti-magisterial dissenters. Theological careers will be ruined, successful pastors will be reassigned to Our Lady of Moonshine parish in Dog Breath USA, or put in charge of the diocesan cemeteries, and seminaries will be instructed to weed out the recalcitrant obstructionists.
So, please be attentive. Please pay attention, for example, to the style of the art associated with the Synod. They all look like the cartoonish ecclesiastical art of the 1970s and I do not think that is an accident. It is just further evidence of the thought world these folks inhabit. It is the thought world of rotary phones, eight-track tape players, and Hans Küng. It is “Muskrat Love” and Charlie Curran all over again."
The good news is that their shelf life will be up in about 10-15 years
Mark Thomas,
LOL. You would have been a good little foot solder in the Third Reich. Pope Benedict was a great intellect and charitable In contrast, PF is an empty cassock and cruel. I bet you think a broken down gremlin is as good as a Mercedes Benz
Father McDonald,
There is a great article at Rorate describing PF's demonic destruction of St. John Paul II's legacy. Here is a sample:
"It turns out, however, that John Paul II secured the undoing of his own legacy within the Church on February 21, 2001. On that date, John Paul II elevated the controversial Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, to Cardinal. And as Pope Francis, Bergoglio would work to destroy John Paul II's legacy as Pope. Indeed, Francis's pontificate is almost a demonic inversion of John Paul II's in key areas.
Start with Communism. There could be no more vivid contrast to John Paul II's unwavering moral witness against Communism than Francis's 2018 deal with the Chinese Communist Party, allowing the CCP to appoint bishops in consultation with the Vatican. John Paul II heroically rallied Poles against their Communist oppressors. But through his craven deal with the CCP, Francis allows the CCP to appoint bishops at will. The CCP no longer bothers consulting with the Vatican on appointments-- and Francis blesses whomever the CCP picks. At the same time, the underground Church in China has been cast adrift.."
One of my concerns is that virtually anybody who has criticized Pope Francis has been placed upon a pedestal.
Peter Kwasniewski slams Pope Francis...Kwasniewski, placed atop his pedestal, has spoken. The case is closed.
Rorate Caeli publishes a hit against Pope Francis. Rorate Caeli has spoken atop its pedestal. The case is closed.
Peter Seewald wishes us to believe that Pope Francis despised Pope Benedict XVI. The interviewer noted to Seewald:
"In your latest book, Benedict's Legacy, you quote the words of praise that Francis had for his predecessor. He praised him as a "great pope": "Great for the strength of his intelligence, his contribution to theology, great for his love for the Church and for people, great for his virtues and his faith."
Confronted with the undeniable truth that Pope Francis always praised Pope Benedict XVI to the hilt. Seewald, to attempt to justify his attacks against Pope Francis, resorted to the suggestion that Pope Francis' praise of Pope Benedict XVI was two-faced.
Peter Seewald: "Today, however, one must ask oneself whether Bergoglio's confessions were just lip service, or even smokescreens."
To Pope Francis' critics here, who placed Seewald on top of a pedestal...Seewald has spoken. The case is closed.
But to even dare to challenge Seewald's garbage attack is to be accused of having placed Pope Francis on a pedestal.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
To demonstrate its two-faced nature, Rorate Caeli today has attempted to defame Pope Francis by having claimed:
"If there was ever a pope whose legacy within the Church seemed irreversible, it was Pope St. John Paul II. At his funeral Mass on April 8, 2005, which set records for crowd size and number of heads of state in attendance, the crowds shouted, "Santo Subito!" ("Make him a Saint Immediately!").
"After his death, a number of clergy and laymen proclaimed him "John Paul the Great." He was duly beatified only six years after his death."
=============================================================
Today, Rorate Caeli, in two-faced fashion, has pretended that they have viewed Pope Saint John Paul II as a great Pope...a great Pope who is under attack by Pope Francis.
This is the same Rorate Caeli blog that for years has attacked Pope Saint John Paul II...has attacked his legacy...has insisted that he wrecked the Church...has denounced him as having blasphemed God via the Assisi ecumenical/interfaith gatherings.
Here is what Rorate Caeli said of Pope Saint John Paul II upon the release of the garbage, discredited Pennsylvania Report that Rorate Caeli supported:
https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-pennsylvania-truth-john-xxiii-paul.html
-- The Pennsylvania Truth: John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II were no saints
"The office of the Attorney General of Pennsylvania has provided a full website dedicated to the report and its details by diocese here."
"The greatest part of the horrid episodes documented by the Grand Jury report happened in the pontificates of John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II."
"How could John XXIII and John Paul II have been canonized?"
"Their systematic failures in the naming of bishops were monstrous."
"Let us be honest: as administrators, John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II were no saints...their express-rite canonizations are shown, with each passing week, to have been horrible mistakes."
"A considerable period of time and long investigations of their grave omissions and of their disgraceful cover-up of perverted or irresponsible bishops should have taken place before any beatification procedure had ever been opened up."
"The time will surely come in the future to reassess these failed pontificates and to do all that is possible to reevaluate these hasty procedures, in which so much pain and so much failure and so much corruption were overlooked."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Getting back to my original observation...
I'm just a regular Catholic guy. I try to stay in a state of grace and attend Mass as frequently as possible and confess my sins once or twice a month. I am worried about all the influences I have to fight for my kids' attention, including a media and culture that is downright pornographic. I am terrified every year that THIS might be the year that I can't keep the payments up on the mortgage. I am terrified of a major repair coming my way. I am obsessed about the eternal destiny of my children. And when I go online to read about what is happening in my Church, my leaders are putting all their concerns into how "welcoming" we are for less than 8 percent of the population. In the pool of priests that gets rotated to parishes, the average diocese have a significant number, some way more than half, that are a bit light on their feet and we're supposed to pretend that we don't notice and certainly not "judge" these males "examples" of manhood.
I'll cut to the chase: I don't care about the concerns of a bunch of queers. I just don't. Sure, I care that they are saved, but all the rest of this nonsense has no appeal to me or most of us in the pews. This isn't the love that "dare not speak its name." This is the "love" that will not shut up about itself. And that's what we'd like for all these pink-underwear-donning priests and bishops (not YOU Father McDonald) to do, JUST SHUT UP ABOUT IT. SAVE IT FOR YOUR CLANDESTINE VACATIONS TO KEY WEST AND THAILAND.
Excuse me now, while I make more room for the usual suspects to prattle on about their sense of outrage that we don't worship the current pontiff.
Rorate Caeli's dishonest defense today of Pope Saint John Paul II...Rorate Caeli's vile, two-faced attack against Pope Francis...has demonstrated the depth of the monumental evil that Pope Francis faces daily.
Rorate Caeli, to attempt to defame Pope Francis, published an article today in which tremendous praise had been heaped upon Pope Saint John Paul II.
That is fine. Pope Saint John Paul II was a holy man...a great Pope.
But the article also claimed that Pope Francis is determined to destroy Pope Saint John Paul II's legacy, which Rorate Caeli pretended to support and defend.
Rorate Caeli has a history of having bashed and trashed Pope Saint John Paul II. Rorate Caeli must have hoped that their readers had forgotten, or been unaware, of said history.
Rorate Caeli had declared:
"How could John XXIII and John Paul II have been canonized?" "Their systematic failures in the naming of bishops were monstrous."
"Let us be honest: as administrators, John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II were no saints...their express-rite canonizations are shown, with each passing week, to have been horrible mistakes."
"A considerable period of time and long investigations of their grave omissions and of their disgraceful cover-up of perverted or irresponsible bishops should have taken place before any beatification procedure had ever been opened up."
"The time will surely come in the future to reassess these failed pontificates and to do all that is possible to reevaluate these hasty procedures, in which so much pain and so much failure and so much corruption were overlooked."
=========================================================
In addition, Rorate Caeli has denounced one thing after another that had marked Pope Saint John Paul II's Pontificate.
Pope Saint John Paul II:
-- Unrelenting support of Vatican II. Rorate Caeli: Vatican II is an horrific Council that must be condemned, as well as forgotten.
-- Unrelenting support of the Holy Mass of Pope Saint Paul VI. Rorate Caeli: Said Mass is spiritual poison that must be destroyed.
-- Unrelenting support of ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, as well as Assisi gatherings.
Rorate Caeli: Has condemned ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, as well as Assisi gatherings.
On and on the examples go.
But Rorate Caeli will talk out of both sides of its mouth, contradict itself in tremendous fashion, promote fake news, go to any length, to attack Pope Francis.
That is the horrific, Satanic activity that Pope Francis faces daily from Rorate Caeli, as well as Rorate Caeli's ilk.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Jerome Merwick,
Bravo! And the empty headed keeps prattling nonsense that we laugh at.
Regarding such nonsense:
John Paul II's papacy WAS a failure in many respects. However, one can also maintain that he WAS a great pope. Is that a contradiction?
I spent many years extremely disappointed by the papacy of John Paul II, especially with regard to his appointments as bishops. The Church seemed to carry on its auto-demolition that had begun under Paul VI with no sense of abatement. His dog-and-pony-show with the pagans at Assisi infuriated me. I even went so far as to consider him a lousy pope who was all hype and no substance. I have since changed my mind.
While I still don't deny the rot that took place during his papacy, I can no longer point the finger of blame at good Karol Wojtyla. There is still very good evidence and testimony from various sources that indicate his predecessor, John Paul I (Luciani) was murdered. We'll probably never get to the truth of it in our lifetimes. He was likely informed that a similar fate awaited him if he went too far with any attempts to reform certain institutions (like the Vatican Bank). From various articles and interviews with people who understand the inner workings of the Vatican machinery, JPII was practically imprisoned and operated under serious restraints. Malachi Martin went so far as to say that he realized that the only way he could fix the Church would be to fire every single bishop and that would have left him even MORE helpless. Evidently, he tried to publish various documents that were stopped dead before they could be released. He soon realized that the only thing he could really do as pope was try to "spread the message" by making as many public appearances as possible, which left us with his nonstop traveling papal roadshow. The Assisi debacle took place, most likely, because he wanted to give a public witness of Jesus Christ to the various pagan leaders and their followers. And then, there is his most lasting tragic legacy: His bishops.
Coming of age in a communist atmosphere, Wojtyla was smart enough to watch what the Soviet puppets did in Poland, and, like his mentor, Cardinal Wyszinski, learned to beat them at their own game. One such defamation technique was to denounce people publicly as homosexuals. So when a terna of bishops was sent to him for selection or approval, advisors would often warn him that certain candidates were homosexuals. Internally, he dismissed such suggestions, believing it to be "malevolent murmurs" against a potentially good bishop and would automatically select the disordered man, believing the advice to be a slander. We all know what THAT brought us-- but again, with his background, it could hardly be called his fault.
People change their minds. News organizations shift positions. That doesn't automatically make such people "satanic" or "two-faced". We live in a complicated world and if people are not permitted flexibility, I suppose there would be no hope for conversions.
Then again, our current pontiff has dismissed proselytizing as "nonsense", so what do I know?
Post a Comment