Saturday, August 18, 2018

CARDINAL CUPICH IT ISN’T ENOUGH TO STATE THE OBVIOUS ABOUT RIGHTEOUS ANGER AND OUTRAGE

Cardinal says ‘sorrow, disgust, rage’ are ‘righteous’ reactions to abuse
Chicago Cardinal Blase J. Cupich, in a file photo. (Credit: Karen Callaway/Chicago Catholic via CNS.)
This is an article on Cardinal Cupich’ reaction to the moral catastrophe caused by BISHOPS! Press title:

Cardinal says ‘sorrow, disgust, rage’ are ‘righteous’ reactions to abuse


My recommendations to Cardinal Cupich:

1. Cardinals who grotesquely mismanaged priests even prior to 2002, acting against common sense, canon law and callously against victims and future ones, in an act of reparation should return their red hat to the pope. A good start would be Cardinal Mahoney.

2. In an act of reparation, bishops and archbishops who acted in the same way should relinquish any power, authority and ambition they have by offering the pope their resignation.

3. All bishops, priests and religious should collectively do acts of reparation not in a "look at me” sort of collective way, but as a normal part of their daily spiritual lives. Days of fasting and abstinence, similar to what was required prior to Vatican II is a good start.

4. Any bishop’s throne or priest chair that is dead center in the sanctuary should be placed to the side, not confrontational to the laity and the tabernacle placed dead center! Ad Orientem is to be actively encouraged and modeled by bishops.

5. There must be truth spoken about the pathology in the priesthood as it is related to homosexuality and this orientation should be called what it is, disordered due to Original Sin as well as actual sins.

6. Outreach to LGBT community should cease because of their political anti-Catholic motives and all Catholics no matter their disordered affections, homosexual or heterosexual, should be called to chastity according to their state in life and offered ministries to support this modeled after Courage. This would include those who obtain a civil divorce.

7. Every bishop in the land should watch Cardinal Burke’s interview on EWTN and follow his common sense advice about following canon law and recovering some aspects of the 1917 code as
it concerns clerical perversion and ceremonies of “degradation” for bishops and priests.

8. Every bishop should call on Pope Francis to cease sowing theological, moral and doctrinal confusion and polarization in the Church and ask His Holiness to answer the dubia and remove “inadmissible” from his recent catechism change and replace it with “inadvisable” or similar word. As well, they should ask His Holiness to cease calling practicing Catholics, be they prelates or laity, "doctors of the law" as this undermines the Law of Christ and the Church's canon laws.

52 comments:

Dan said...

Hmmm... sounds like you're recommending humility and holiness. What crazy ideas!

Anonymous said...

ABSOLUTELY! Now, if only the Holy Father would take this duty of correction on as Cardinal Burke advised. It is the appropriate “legal” path in the Church, the right and duty of the Pope as head of the Church, NOT Bishops Conferences. We all might begin to heal slowly but surely if correction begins from the top down.

TJM said...

Cupich is a left-winger more concerned with climate change and open borders. Hardly the man to restore Catholicism. Churches are closing at a nice cip in CHicago on Cupich's watch. Churches in areas of Chicago where there are an overwhelming numbers of Catholics. I guess they didn't hear about the new "Springtime"

Rood Screen said...

Heterosexual priests who sexually abuse adolescent girls almost always have only a single victim.

Homosexual priests who sexually abuse adolescent boys almost always have multiple victims.

Therefore, even if there were no laws or procedures to protect adolescents from sexual abuse, an all-heterosexual priesthood would be far less dangerous to adolescents.

Homosexuals in the priesthood should be identified as such and then removed from the clergy, but with genuine assistance provided to chaste homosexuals as they transition to new lives.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Fr. McD, what you state in your post is what they would do if they were Catholic believing Christians who are the disciples and priests of Jesus Christ.

Watch what they really do.

What they will really do tells you a lot about what they are and what they are not.

A long time ago a very wise woman told me, don't listen so much to what a guy tells you, watch what he DOES. Judge his character by what he DOES, not by what he says. Best advice about people I ever got.

God bless.
Bee

Mark Thomas said...

Father McDonald said..."Outreach to LGBT community should cease because of their political anti-Catholic motives..."

Father, the Church practices ecumenism and interreligious "dialogue" with groups who, at least underneath the smiles and handshakes, trash Catholicism.

Pax.

Mark Thomas

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

My suggestion concerns Catholics in these organizations and inviting them to a special Mass and offering Holy Communion to them despite whatever state of moral ambiguity their lives are in.

Yes, we should dialogue with people, if they are open and do not have a hidden political agenda, to lead them to Christ and the Church's truth, not to appease them.

The Catholic ministry "Courage" is the correct way to reach out to "LGBT" Catholics.

Anonymous said...

Note to ALL clergy and laity: When all have voiced their personal feelings and opinions, it is NOT about us. It is about the victims, their despair and isolated feelings. But most of all, it is about our God who weeps for us all.

Anonymous said...

Bishops should voluntarily publish the record on abuse in their dioceses. It will come out anyway soon enough. Cardinal Cupich should show a good example by publishing the Chicago records first. Without such initiative his present communique is hallow.

Rood Screen said...

Anonymous,

The victims do not need our sympathy or God's tears. The victims need us to take revolutionary action against the corrupt leaders of God's Church. Pitchforks and torches, not sympathy and tears.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

To Anonymous at August 18, 2018 at 12:05 PM:

"...When all have voiced their personal feelings and opinions, it is NOT about us."

Oh, but it IS about us, because a brood of vipers and white-washed tombs runs our Church - the clerics. And these are horrible men who either did horrible things with impunity, or who were silent about these things in their midst.

Please don't deflect the issue by changing the subject. The victims have the civil courts to resolve their claims.

We for our part are outraged at the lack of morality of these men who run our Church. It IS about us.

As these men are so fond of saying, WE are the Church. And WE are sickened by these...these...these...pigs.

Enough is enough. We waited. We took the vile vitriol of non-Catholics for all these years decrying the sick behavior among clerics in our Church. We forgave. We defended our priests and bishops. We gave time for it to be corrected.

Know what happened? For the most part it was "business as usual." Oh, there were new rules for cases with kids. But there was no cleaning house. There was no admission this is a homosexual problem. There was no zero tolerance for sex with adult men. Nope. (Oh, except in the case of Fr. Phillips, who was removed even after the claims of inappropriate behavior with adult men were proven false. But that is how the Cardinals handle traditionally minded priests. Tarnish them with the accusation, and use that as a reason to get rid of them. Kind of like Jesus was treated.)

So it blows up again. Only worse.

So it IS about US. Because there is no more patient understanding. There is no more giving time for it to be fixed. There is no more trust. THEY ARE LIARS. And every time I hear one of them soft-soaping the issue I want to punch him right in the face.

I want them all out. All homosexuals. At every level. I'll put up with consolidated parishes and fewer priests. JUST GET THEM OUT!

It probably will take an act of God for this to happen, because they have found a pretty nice lifestyle; flying under the radar, with lots of money coming in and lots of luxury for doing very little, pursing their love of pleasure and redecorating and beautiful things, and they are not going to leave without a fight.

But all you clerics out there aware of homosexuality among your confreres, be forewarned. We'll be blaming you too.

God bless. (You'll need it.)
Bee


Anonymous said...

But most of all, it is about our God who weeps for us all.

Henry said...

Bee - Bravo. Best comment ever. It's the rare sparkling gem like this among the dross that makes this blog worth reading.

Anonymous said...

And yes, Bee, I understand how you feel—believe me I have never struggled so hard or hurt so much in my 71 Catholic years. I’ve said it before here in the past month: We. Are. At. War. You and I are on the same side.
But we cannot ever forget what Cdl. Burke reminded Raymond Arroyo: This war is about “principalities and powers” and their firm intent to devour the Mystical Body of Christ. It is not just about me and my feelings. I must stay focused, alert and prepared spiritually to do battle. The feelings right now are so strong that they can detract me from my ultimate goal of preserving my beloved Catholic faith from all harm.
God bless,
Anon 12:05

TJM said...

Bee, notice how MT dodges reality?

Gene said...

Bee is absolutely correct. It has just been business as usual with a lot of lip service (no pun intended). The queers still abound in the Priesthood. There is something seriously wrong with a Church that produces so many disordered Priests. They go into the Priesthood because it is fertile territory for victims...a virtual hunting ground, with a bunch of spineless Bishops (probably gay themselves) who do nothing about the problem. Yes, there are gay ministers in the protestant church, but the problem is not as widespread and they are gotten rid of as soon as their disorder is discovered.

Anonymous said...

Indeed, Gene, “ ...there is something seriously wrong with a Church that produces so many disordered Priests.” Read Richard Sipe’s letter two years ago to his bishop in San Diego. He delineates the problem very well. How to fix it? At this point given the depth and breadth of the problem, who really knows.

Concerned Catholic said...

What is happening to us? Bee's comment is understandable but no Henry, it is NOT the best comment ever. Bee has had much better.

Such comments as these are unbecoming of a Catholic:

"Oh, but it IS about us, because a brood of vipers and white-washed tombs runs our Church - the clerics."

"THEY ARE LIARS. And every time I hear one of them soft-soaping the issue I want to punch him right in the face."

"But all you clerics out there aware of homosexuality among your confreres, be forewarned. We'll be blaming you too."

I will pray for you Bee. You can do much better(and have).

Anonymous 2 said...

I understand Bee’s distress and her righteous anger. You can ask my wife and the friend we met for dinner on Tuesday evening just how upset I was after reading some of the accusations of unspeakably vile behavior in the Pennsylvania grand jury report earlier that afternoon. However, in keeping with the spirit of Anonymous’ comment at 8:10 p.m. as well as with basic precepts of due process, I am also mindful of the points made by Bill Donahue in his critique of the grand jury report that was the subject of the previous thread.

If Donahue is more or less correct in his “myth debunking,” there is a risk that the current “outrage” over this matter on the part of both Catholics and non-Catholics alike will result in grave injustice being done to many fine priests and higher clergy who are innocent of any wrongdoing, not to mention grave damage to Holy Mother Church.

One of the most disturbing passages to me in Bee’s post is the following: “I want them all out. All homosexuals. At every level. I'll put up with consolidated parishes and fewer priests. JUST GET THEM OUT!” To which I would simply say to Bee: Be careful what you wish for; you may not like the result, if you (like Rood Screen) are also talking about clergy who have a homosexual orientation but are nevertheless chaste, and not only those who are active homosexuals.

If ever there was a time when a calm determination to address a problem with practical wisdom was called for, this is it. The correct balance must be struck between the extremes of uncaring and self-serving inaction/complacency, on the one hand, and a witch hunt/lynch mob mentality driven by unreasoning emotion on the other.


Anonymous said...

"There is something seriously wrong with a Church that produces so many disordered Priests."

First, the Church does not "produce" disordered priests. They arrive at seminaries with their disorders.

Second, "so many" is completely off.

"The report (John Jay Study) does not identify a specific definitive cause for the abuse—there is no “smoking gun” for the victimization of thousands of boys and girls by Catholic clergy during the past six decades. There was, rather, a confluence of organizational, psychological and situational factors that “contributed to the vulnerability of priests” during this period that resulted in 4 percent to 6 percent of them committing acts of abuse. Why the other 94 percent to 96 percent of the priests, subjected to the same vulnerabilities, did not offend is not clear and may be beyond the limits of psychological and social research."

4% of priests were accused. Less than 0.25% were convicted. Compare those number to the larger society.

"Sadly, hysteria often has ruled the day during the past decade regarding this tragic topic. The responsible use of quality research science, education, and best practices will keep children safe, not strong opinions and emotional hysteria."

Anonymous said...

"A handful of studies compiled by the Center for the Prevention of Sexual and Domestic Violence, some more than a decade old, suggest that up to 15 percent of clergy members in all religious groups have engaged in some inappropriate conduct, whether a stolen kiss or full-fledged sexual abuse."

"The Methodist Church in Britain has issued an “unreserved apology” for failing to protect children and adults after an independent investigation identified 1,885 reports of physical and sexual abuse within the institution dating back to the 1950s."

The Methodist "John Jay Study" is here: https://www.methodist.org.uk/media/4409/past-cases-review-2013-2015-final.pdf

Anonymous said...

Priests Commit No More Abuse Than Other Males

https://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625

Anonymous said...

Protestant Ministers Convicted of Sex Abuse - Lutheran

http://www.protestantya.com/index.php/protestant-ministers-convicted-of-sex-abuse-lutheran

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I think it is a fact that the percentage of priests abusing is similar or lower than other males. Of course, priests and bishops aren't suppose to be like other males in this regard.

I think too we have to look at the number of abuse, the number of victims for each abuser and make some sense out of that if we compare priests to Protestant ministers.

But the elephant in the room isn't so much the priest-abusers, as horrible as it is, but the bishops who did not report them to law enforcement, thought they could cure them, placed them back in parishes for their potential future abuse of unsuspecting minors and their parents who trusted them.

Ultimately our scandal is about enabling bishops and their secrecy and desperation to keep their priestly sons in ministry no matter what.

Anonymous said...

PA cannot be the only hot bed of abuse in the Church. All dioceses must be investigated by grand juries. Only then can find out who is/are responsible for this catastrophic breakdown of morality among the bishops and some priests. Richard Sipe a former priest and son.researcher estimated that at any time 50% of the clergy are sexually active, having homo- or hetero-sexual affairs. All such people are subject to blackmail and blackmail is the organizational collapse among bishops particularly. All bishops (even the bishop of Rome) must be investigated to find the web of conspiracy in the Church. Benedict XVI handed a white binder to the present Holy Father that ostensibly described the homosexual cal in the Church. What happened to this file? Why don't we head about what our Pope decided to do with it?

TJM said...

Father McDonald, the bishops not reporting them is a crime, punishible by imprisonment. I notice Anonymous (Kavanaugh) is still making excuses for the homosexual problem the Church has.

Rood Screen said...

Anonymous,

A Catholic priest is no more likely than other men to be a pervert, but pervert priests are statistically likely to have far more victims. Most cases are not reported to a bishop in a timely manner, so episcopal oversight is not the primary problem. Homosexuality is the problem. Homosexuality has always been the problem. The Church is dripping with the spoiled seed of homosexual priests. Even the chaste ones--who deserve our respect, our encouragement and our help finding a more suitable job--must go.

Mad as hell, not gonna take it anymore said...

The posters doth protest too much, methinks. I’m talking about those of you who are taking Bee and others to task for being mad and outraged. You nitpick and contradict by saying things like the Church doesn’t produce disorder and that the Methodists are just as bad and that priests statistically are no worse than anyone else. Garbage. Deflecting, dissembling garbage!

First, in a climate like this, in which for years we’ve heard such defenses by people who have continued to sanction and abet this unspeakable behavior after being called out on it a decade and a half ago, you can just stick it in your ears.

Second, yes, the Church DOES produce this problem, if not the disorders themselves, by permitting such people into the seminaries and into the priesthood, and then systematically following a process of keeping them there even with full knowledge of what they are doing. You can’t blame that on the fact that there are people with disorders. The hierarchy has consciously, intentionally solicited, facilitated, and promoted that disordered behavior and thus must take full ownership of the problem.

Third, the principal danger isn’t that innocent priests will be punished, but that guilty priests, bishops, and cardinals will go unpunished, which has clearly been the case since 2002. We obviously cannot trust the fact-finding and juridical process of the Church. OK, then lets have a bunch of RICO prosecutions (which can perhaps remove some statute of limitations difficulties), and let the secular arm, with its full panoply of due process, have a go at it. Presumably that will protect the innocent as well as punish the guilty and purify the priesthood—which the hierarchy has been patently unable and unwilling to do.

Fourth, I don’t give a damn right now if the Methodists are just as bad. The fact that there are unspeakable evils going on elsewhere IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER justifies, ameliorates, mitigates, or in any way “puts into perspective” the problem we are discussing here or helps to address the issue; it’s more bobbing, dodging, and weaving. Likewise for any stats comparing the priests’ behavior to that of the general population. Priests are supposed to be better than this. Some groups have always, and properly, been held to a higher fiduciary standard than others, and I can think of nobody to whom this should apply more than priests. Even if they are only human, I expect and require that they beat the stats by an extremely wide margin. And that’s merely talking about the despicable behavior itself, not even getting into the conspiratorial activity of the hierarchy to permit and encourage it to continue, which has no excuse whatsoever.

You people who are urging restraint and otherwise downplaying this problem should be ashamed of yourselves. We heard the same counsel fifteen years ago, and, at least partly in consequence, nothing has changed. (And don’t you dare say it has changed since there is less such activity. Even assuming that that is true, less is not acceptable when there should be NONE to begin with.)

You think we should forgive? I’m not interested in forgiving future sins but preventing them. You think we shouldn’t be outraged? The first time we were saddened. Nothing changed. Now it’s time for the outrage. No justice, no peace.

rcg said...

A2, Bee’s cri d’coeur is understandable and her reaction is not altogether wrong. I cetertainly agree with your preferred course of action, but pont out that the faithful homosexual Catholics, if they actually exist, have been largely silent on helping solve the problem by identifying the promiscuous priests and bishops corrupting the Church. This love of the sin over the Church speaks to the strength of homosexuality as a disorder as well as the untrustworthy nature of those afflicted by it. The homosexual ‘community’ strongly identifies itself mainly for the purpose of perpetuating and sustaining itself. They behave remarkably like drug addicts except they activly resist Catholic missions that seek to help them resist it and instead support and laud the efforts of gay priests among their ranks and thereby share the affliction. We would not give the keys to the sacristy to an active alcoholic or drug addict in hopes that the display of trust would support his recovery. That is the cart before the horse. We would be especially disturbed to, coincidentally, discover a cache of spliffs in Fr. McCool’s cupboard after the Bishop’s trip to Honduras. Somethings look bad because they are.

The rules for access to the Sacraments should be the same for everybody (cf divorced Catholics) and the clergy should be faithful custodians of that access. We are no longer sure that, as a group that they are trustworthy and must now ask them, and each other, “Who goes there?”

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Here's my point about wanting all homosexuals out of the Church: who in their right mind would put a man who has a weakness for other men into an environment that is exclusively male? Talk about leading someone into temptation!

It would be the same as housing monks with cloistered nuns. Tell me there is not a reason for keeping the sexes separate in religious life.

I would imagine celibacy is difficult enough without opportunities for sin presented at every turn. Just as a parish does not hire voluptuous young ladies for house keeping and cooking in the rectory, so it is not wise to admit men who have the weakness of attraction to other men into the priesthood.

Let's not be naive about this.

Geez!

God bless.
Bee

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

To Concerned Catholic at August 19, 2018 at 12:33 AM

Man, you slay me!

I'll tell you what is unbecoming a Catholic: being an ordained priest, of any station, and forcing yourself sexually on boys, and young men in the seminary, or even having homosexual relations with other priests or laymen. And then lying about it. Or knowing about it and lying about that.

It's time to stop deflecting the truth or couching it in politically correct language to dilute it. It is time for speaking plainly and honestly.

Don't accuse those who are fed up with this atrocity of going too far in their speech. It's exactly the likes of you who have worked very hard to deflect the deserved consequences from those who are a part of this evil ,by accusing those who protest strongly against it of sin. Ha!

I am proud to be of the same character as St. Nicholas who punched Arius out right on the council floor. Christians are not patsies for evil. Ever.

God bless. (And I mean that!)
Bee

TJM said...

As the late Richard Sipe would say "not having any higher percentage of sex crimes than the laity or Protestant clergy" is not much of a response" or words to that effect.

Concerned Catholic said...

Bee:

One thing I will agree with you and others is in keeping those with a homosexual inclination out of the seminaries.

I don't think the comment you made was one of your better ones and one reason I don't is that you make it sound like all priests are a "brood of vipers","white washed tombs", "liars". and "homosexuals". It seemed that way to me but if I got the wrong impression, I apologize.

Anonymous said...

Church offices, with rate exceptions, are populated with women. Catholic school faculties and staff are, with rate exceptions, populated with women. In neither is it required that the women be ugly. Yet you have expressed no concern for the temptation this may/does present to straight men. Interesting, that.

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

Bee is a true Catholic. I am sure she is not talking about homosexually oriented men who are chaste, never act on their inclinations and are true to their committment to the priesthood and celibacy. Heterosexuallly oriented priests must do the same. However, homosexual men are at greater risk because that is where the boys are. Perhaps that is why St. John XXIII issued an order not to admit them to the seminaries. My anger is directed at fake bishops and cardinals who did nothing. I would punch their lights out if I could get my hands on them. They are scum and not worthy of our sympathy. Until PF gets rid of them, not one dime for Peter's Pence

Anonymous 2 said...

Bee (and Rood Screen):

I am glad you brought up monks and nuns. Will men and women with same sex attraction who live in cloistered communities also be subject to your recommended purge? By your logic they should be surely, even if innocent of any wrongdoing.

Also, surely you are not suggesting that a heterosexual male priest is free of temptations in his pastoral work even if no voluptuous young ladies are hired to cook and clean in rectories. Should we ban him from having any contact with women (I assume you are not making a case for female priests)? How many priests have left the priesthood to get married? How many heterosexual priests who have remained in the priesthood have engaged in illicit sexual relations with women? A cursory Google search is revealing to say the least. As you say, let’s not be naïve about this.

Let’s cut to the chase here. Isn’t the unspoken assumption that those with same sex attraction have more difficulty being continent than those with opposite sex attraction? If so, is this assumption correct? What does the evidence show?

Please understand I am not trying to make excuses here or to counsel complacency. On the contrary, I am very open to going where the evidence leads on the preceding questions. But let’s proceed on the basis of fact, reason, and appropriately channeled emotion, not opinion, unreason, and unbridled emotion.

And needless to say, while acknowledging the unique trust and responsibility reposed in our priests, and the justified disappointment and anger when that unique trust is betrayed and abused, let us also remember that we are all broken and sinful people (including you and me—there are no exceptions) in need of divine mercy.

Rood Screen said...

Anonymous 2,

You ask if it is our (I speak only for myself) "unspoken assumption that those with same sex attraction have more difficulty being continent than those with opposite sex attraction". The 2004 John Jay study shows that priests who abused adolescent girls almost always abused one girl, while priests who abused adolescent boys tended to have multiple victims. There is other research pertaining to this phenomenon (e.g. the 2013 paper by Richard Fitzgibbons & Dale O'Leary), not to mention the Holy See's prohibition against admitting homosexuals to the seminary, a prohibition reinforced by Pope Francis.

Further, homosexual priests undermine the value of celibacy, since they publicly profess a vocation that is secretly irrelevant to them. Just as Friday abstinence from eating meat has no penitential value for a vegetarian, celibacy has no evangelical value for a homosexual.

None of this should be a call to mistreat homosexuals, but at the same time homosexuals should not forcibly shut down these important conversations by default.

ByzRC said...

My thought on the discussion between Bee, Anon, Anon2 et al:

Formerly, the focus has been on protecting homosexuals in the clergy, for the good of their priesthood. Now, in light of the PA Grand Jury Report, there is a focus on weeding out current and future homosexuals from the priesthood for the good of the Church and her people. It is a tough thing, trying to "balance the equities". By doing the latter, status quo will be the likely result despite the weak damage control language of the hierarchy and, enhanced policies, procedures and oversight (both internal, external, lay etc). By doing the former, good, solid priests will yet again be scrutinized, abused by other clergy, laity and, of course, the press. Rather than a witch hunt, perhaps there needs to be a determination that homosexuality is incompatible with the priesthood, in all its states, and, therefore, current and future candidates with this leaning will not be ordained. Then, try to move away from public service those who's inclinations are known and try, try, try to prevent similar harm until the current generations of priests have retired. This will be ugly, either way but, it seems that at this juncture and as I've mentioned before, the corner that the Church has turned requires that it choose what it wants the priesthood to be, for the good of the Church and the souls to which it ministers. The only guaranteed as the equities are reviewed for balancing, is that it will be ugly.

Rood Screen said...

ByzRC,

Your proposed approach seems both fair and effective.

Anonymous 2 said...

I do not care one whit if a priest is gay. I do care, and I care a great deal, if a priest, whether heterosexual or homosexual, gravely abuses the trust and responsibility placed in him by abusing anyone sexually, especially a minor. I suspect I share this rather simple attitude with the vast majority of practicing Catholics.

Gene said...

I do care if Priest is gay...there should be no gay Priests, except that "gay Priest" is almost a redundancy these days. "Chaste" homosexuals is an oxymoron...gays define themselves primarily by their sexuality and are most often defiant about it. It is absurd to try and defend them or rationalize gay Priests...or gay anything else. Homosexuality is a character disorder that is based upon a biological falsehood that is condemned in Scripture very clearly.

Rood Screen said...

Anonymous 2,

Since homosexual priests are statistically much more likely to commit such abuse, a fact evident in published data, it's hard to take your statement seriously.

Anonymous 2 said...

Gene (and Rood Screen):

Here is the problem I see. It is not an unreasonable assumption that 1 in 3, or perhaps even 1 in 2 who are currently priests in the United States, especially older priests, are gay/homosexual in inclination. At least those are the sorts of estimates I have read.

What are we to conclude, then, if it turns out that this also describes a priest we admire and even whom we regard as a paragon of the priesthood? Although this is a combination you might be inclined to deny and I would not (but shouldn’t we let reliable evidence determine the matter?), I would be very surprised if we have not known such priests over the years (although of course we may not have known that they were gay/homosexual in inclination).

If a priest can perform his service well as a priest, and indeed even be such a paragon, a model of holiness even, why in Heaven’s name should we now penalize him because of the transgressions of some of his fellow priests? Wouldn’t this be a serious injustice?

Rood Screen said...

Anonymous 2,

You make a reasonable and charitable point. I would still argue that the evangelical value of celibacy is diminished by the presence of any homosexual priests, but I do think your considerations could warrant leaving in active ministry those homosexual priests who are over a certain age, perhaps 50, provided they have never spoken (or acted) against Catholic moral teachings on sexuality.

Anonymous 2 said...

Rood Screen:

Thank you for your gracious reply. I am very glad you agree with the spirit of my comment, if not perhaps with_all_of its letter.

TJM said...

Rood Screen,

And they are chaste!

DJR said...

Anonymous 2 said...

What are we to conclude, then, if it turns out that this also describes a priest we admire and even whom we regard as a paragon of the priesthood? Although this is a combination you might be inclined to deny and I would not (but shouldn’t we let reliable evidence determine the matter?), I would be very surprised if we have not known such priests over the years (although of course we may not have known that they were gay/homosexual in inclination).

If a priest can perform his service well as a priest, and indeed even be such a paragon, a model of holiness even, why in Heaven’s name should we now penalize him because of the transgressions of some of his fellow priests? Wouldn’t this be a serious injustice?


This statement makes an assumption, and that is, that a homosexual priest can perform his "service" well as a priest. There is no evidence for that.

What is meant by "performing service well"?

Does the homosexual priest properly advise penitents in the confessional regarding sexual matters?

Does he tell a penitent that a penitent's intrinsically disordered inclinations are in fact intrinsically disordered?

The serious injustice involved is to members of the lay faithful. Men who knew they have homosexual inclinations entered the priesthood. Did they tell everybody, "I am a homosexual, and I am entering the priesthood?"

No, they did not. They hid their inclinations (until more recent times, where it didn't matter). Google the homosexualist Jason Welles, SJ, who openly promotes homosexuality.

No one is forced to be a priest, and no one has the right to the priesthood either.

Homosexuals do not have a priestly vocation. Period. The Church has, several times, indicated this. They are to be prevented from entering seminaries.

I have encountered several homosexual priests in my lifetime. I assume they were chaste. But each one of them had problems in liturgical/belief areas.

One of them was okay with women priests. Another one was assigned to a Roman Rite parish near me that still used its Communion rail. The homosexual was assigned to the parish, and the first thing that happened is that kneeling for Communion was stopped.

Father Martin, SJ, is apparently a chaste person. But he in no way performs his service well.

Would it be unjust to remove an academic who was able to fabricate his curriculum vitae?

How about an executive who lied on his resume?

It is not a matter of injustice to remove such men now. They were dishonest to begin with.

Read about the priest who "came out" recently in the Milwaukee Archdiocese and tell me that you don't believe that that man has not had severe psychological problems.

Sitting on a window ledge, ready to jump off because he realizes he is "gay" but then he goes on to get ordained anyway?

Men like that should be laicized. If not, they need to be put in a place away from any kind of public ministry. They can offer Mass privately like monks do.

ByzRC said...

DJR said:

Does the homosexual priest properly advise penitents in the confessional regarding sexual matters?

Does he tell a penitent that a penitent's intrinsically disordered inclinations are in fact intrinsically disordered?

The serious injustice involved is to members of the lay faithful. Men who knew they have homosexual inclinations entered the priesthood. Did they tell everybody, "I am a homosexual, and I am entering the priesthood?"
*********************************

Reading this, one thought (rightly or wrongly) regarding homosexual priests immediately came to mind: How self-centered.

Anonymous 2 said...

DJR:

If you read my comment more carefully, you will see that it is more contingent than you make it out to be. Thus I made no assumption that a homosexual priest “can” perform his service well. I did make an assumption that such a priest_may_be able to perform his service well. And I suggested that in trying to answer the question whether or not any given homosexual priest_can_in fact perform his service well, we should let reliable evidence determine the matter, although it is true that I also expressed my sense that the evidence would likely show that some unknown number of homosexual priests could indeed perform their service well.

By contrast, your own comment seems replete with prejudicial assumptions, so many indeed that it is difficult to know where to begin.



Anonymous said...

Our local seminary can't see the point of prayer and fasting !! Our graduation celebration will feature "The purple Boys in the Band"!!!
All welcome !!! except those who can not only recite the Creeds but dare to believe them !!

DJR said...

Anonymous 2 said..."If you read my comment more carefully, you will see that it is more contingent than you make it out to be. Thus I made no assumption that a homosexual priest “can” perform his service well. I did make an assumption that such a priest_may_be able to perform his service well."

A distinction without a difference.

What is the definition of "service" being employed here?

The Church has stated, and presumably Our Lord agrees, that homosexuals are to be precluded from ordination.

What that tells us is that the very definition of a Catholic priest is that he be a heterosexual male.

Therefore, as the very essence of what the Church understands the term "priest" to mean cannot possibly be fulfilled by a homosexual, the homosexual cannot possibly perform his services well. He lacks the first ingredient.

Do Catholics not understand that the "service" a priest renders is, first and foremost, to God?

Either God calls homosexuals to be priests or He does not.

If God calls homosexuals to be priests, why does His Church state that He does not?

If God does not call homosexuals to be priests, then the homosexual who takes the priesthood upon himself is in direct defiance to His creator and therefore cannot possibly "perform his service well."

Can anyone name one single homosexual priest who has been canonized in the last 1900+ years?

Anonymous 2 said...

DJR:

“Can/Is able to” versus “may be able to” -- “A distinction without a difference.”

So you assert. Let the educated reader decide. Neither you nor I gets to make up our own rules about grammar and the use of the English language regarding definitive versus conditional or contingent statements.