Friday, August 31, 2018

HOMOSEXUAL CLERICALISM AND PRIVILEGE?


I happen to believe that clericalism properly understood is at the root of the Church’s sex abuse scandal . And yes, it can be homosexual or heterosexual clericalism.

But homosexual clericalism is the most virulent form of it. Let me explain with an Episcopal Church example.

A few years ago in Macon an Episcopal priest invited me to lunch. Somehow the conversation turned to gay clergy in the Episcopal Church in Macon (I suspect he wanted to know from me if I was gay or straight.) . He told me he was gay and living with a gay lover, a transitional deacon in another Episcopal Church in town. He told me his bishop knew of this arrangement and had no problems.

His own parish had no problems although he did concede that one woman on his vestry worried about public displays of affection during services or elsewhere when he was with his lover.

I asked him, could a heterosexual unmarried priest live with a woman in the same kind of arrangement as he had or a woman minister live with an ordained man? He said no, that would be frowned upon.

There you have it, actual privilege and entitlement not afforded heterosexuals. CLERICALISM! Homosexual clericalism.

The major problem in the Catholic Church is homosexual clericalism too. When bishops accept homosexual men to the seminary, problems start. Would they put heterosexual seminarians in a similar close living situation in an all women's environment as found in all men seminaries or religious orders? Would the Nashville Dominican Sisters allow young men to live in convents and in the same way religious women live in common? Absolutely not because it opens the door to sexual situations, courtship and marriage. In other words it goes against common sense! One doesn't need to be an expert in these things.

Heterosexual seminarians and priests who fall in love and are explicitly romantic usually do the right thing, they leave the seminary or priesthood and get married. This excludes them from active ministry. Homosexual seminarians and priests simply do as they please in their relationships which aren’t always monogamous and the bishop looks the other way as we have seen over and over again. Others presume on the heterosexuality of these men never thinking more might be involved. Or the worst kind of Catholic priesthood clericalism, the presumption that these men who have made a vow or promise of celibate chastity are in fact celibate and chaste!

But this is the horror of homosexual clericalism prior to the 2002 charter. Most parents trusted that priests were celibate and chaste and they could trust priests with their boys in parishes and seminaries because they thought these priests were heterosexual  and celibate and would not not take advantage of their boys. Thus, presumed heterosexual and celibate priests who really were homosexual priests who believed they could break their vows/promises of celibacy could take boys on camping trips, vacations and the like without parents worrying.

But do you think these same parents would entrust their girls, daughters to heterosexual priests in the same way even though the priest was in fact celibate? NO, NO, NO! They knew that something fishy would be afoot! And they didn't want to tempt the celibate heterosexual priest to fall into sin with their daughters who while teenagers, could in many states marry at 13 or 16, South Carolina being a state taht allowed 13 year olds to marry with parental consent until the 1980's!

And most parishioners in the prudish pre-Vatican II days when modesty was still a virtue would read a woman or girl the riot act if they dressed provocatively around a presumed celibate Catholic priest. They wouldn't worry to much about a man/teenager doing the same because the the laity's presumptions of celibacy and heterosexuality.

Thus homosexual clericalism entailed homosexuals taking advantage of the belief of the laity thought they were heterosexual and celibate and no threat to their teenage and young adult sons! Celibate heterosexual priests would never think of close relationships with girls because parents wouldn't allow it anyway. And thus this explains why 82% of the cases of sexual abuse against teenagers and very young adults is homosexual and not heterosexual in the Catholic Church. Homosexual clericalism went unchecked by a trusting laity who never dreamed priests could be homosexual and actively so with their sons!  At its root though, this is a bishops' problem for allowing this to happen over and over again and not warn the laity about allowing anyone heterosexual or homosexual to have such access to their children!

Yes, homosexual clericalism is the problem when homosexuals in the seminary and priesthood are given access to same sex situations that would never be allowed heterosexual seminarians and priests with the opposite sex.

There you have it!

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Indeed so.
And this is the factor the church hierarchy can control.
Another factor of control: the church can create a safe way for clergy (and laity) to report any abuse without fear of reprisal or being dismissed as gossip/malice with an assurance that the report WILL be taken seriously and investigated.
What cannot be controlled are the psychological issues (discussed here in a former thread) or personality disorders that might be involved in the already-ordained. This is where an environment of safe reporting by colleagues/laity is mandatory.

TJM said...

Father McDonald, no disrespect meant here, but I have seen pictures of you in your younger days and perhaps they thought you would be interested in an "ecumenical" threesome!!! Why you may have been made head of a Roman Congregation with that sort of "credential"

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

I just noticed in the photo of Santita, that it appears he is not wearing an amice to cover his Roman collar. Is an amice no longer required?

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Amice is there but fallen below collar. Albs that cover the clothes under the alb are sufficient and thus no amice is required. Amices are quite difficult to keep in place, especially for some of us and i am one of them. I think it has to do with the neck type.

TJM said...

Father McDonald,

Thanks for your response. I have fond memories of helping the priest vest, amice and maniples etal!I remember how there were small ties on the amice and I noticed the priest sometimes had a hard time, particularly the big guygs! I also loved the vesting prayers and hope that some priests are still saying them

Anonymous said...

The problem starts in the seminary as you say. Men with same sex attraction should not be admitted. Benedict XVI issued a directive about this but some bishops ignored his instruction. I remember at the time it was promulgated several bishops were interviewed by a newspaper and not all the bishops were on board with the Pope's directive. These bishops gave vague or nuanced answers to the inquiry. You just knew those men knew better than the Pope (Bishops again!)

But today (after V2)the governance of dioceses or parishes is loosy-goosy too. The bishops may command fear but not respect. Bishops care little about the liturgy permitting anything as long as money comes in. No discipline in providing sacraments, sloppy Masses with lay people of both sexes cluttering up the sanctuary at the most sacred parts of the Mass give a definite permission priests to act any which way with parishioners, even have affairs or abuse even the sexually immature.

The Church is a worldwide organization. The span of control for the Pope even with the help of the Curia is insanely wide. Any sloppy administrator at the home-office can cause headaches for the HF. Not that he cares much. His management style after all was announced as Hagan lio (?). Well, he did and the folks under him did too. Not all, not the Cardinal Burke type folks but the rest knew that the doors to the secular Paradise was thrown wide open when Francis put Bishop Ricca in charge of Santa Marta- because, hey, who am I to judge? Right!

The party is still on although the noise makers now are not as laud as last week. And bummer!, the police are coming to investigate and I hope it is too late to hide everything illegal: the drugs, the money deals, and the sin of immorality. Yeah, the best parties come to an end and the funnest ones usually end with huge headaches for the participants.

The next Pope, if there is a resignation in our future, better look for a new Hercules, since he did it once maybe he can do it again.

Anonymous said...

I am not surprised his bishop (referring to Macon) had "no problem" with that living arrangement. Macon is part of the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta, and its leader, Robert Wright, is very liberal (you can find a listing for "same sex blessings" on the diocesan website). His predecessor, Neil Alexander, was also liberal (in 2003, voting for Gene Robinson, the New Hampshire bishop who was "married" to another man)---and Alexander now heads the school of theology at Sewanee (University of the South) in Tennessee. A lot of Episcopalians live in gay-friendly Midtown Atlanta, or in not much less socially liberal Buckhead, and they basically call the shots.

But at least Wright's three predecessors appreciated liturgical worship. Unless he is at the High-Church Catehderal of St. Philip in Atlanta, Wright does not wear the usual bishop's regalia (miter and chasuble or cope) when visiting his parishes---instead wearing basically choir clothing with what looks like a multicultural stole. (The Episcopal Church in its canons does not have any requirements for clerical dress at worship, though almost all Episcopal clergy at least wear something, even if just a cassock and surplice with stole.)

Georgia's other Episcopal diocese is based in Savannah (Diocese of Georgia) and includes Augusta, south Georgia and runs to edge of Columbus and Macon. I would not say it is a conservative diocese, but it is not as liberal as Atlanta. The Georgia diocese (in Savannah) includes a fine church with old-fashioned worship (1928 Book of Common Prayer), St. John's on Macon Street, not too far from the other "St. John" in the area (of course referring to the cathedral at Lafayette Square). you won't find PC at St. John's.


Anonymous said...

How many heterosexual men have, working in the midst of the mostly female parish and school staffs, left to marry?

The fact that a gay man is in a mostly male seminary environment does not predispose him to act out sexually any more than a straight man in a mostly female parish/school environment is predisposed to do so.

A person with a healthy sexual self-understanding, gay or straight, is not going to mess around.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

After Vatican II’s desire for clergy and religious self actualization, a huge number of priests left the priesthood to marry nuns and laity, huge number! And seminaries were emptied out over night.

But we are speaking of ephebhilia and homosexual clericalismm with over 80% of abuse cases by homosexuals and less than 20% by heterosexuals.

Anonymous said...

"When bishops accept homosexual men to the seminary, problems start. Would they put heterosexual seminarians in a similar close living situation in an all women's environment as found in all men seminaries or religious orders?"

The question I raised followed in this question you asked.

"Close quarters" in parishes and schools with 97% female staffs can be "dangerous" to straight men. Do we stop having women on parish/school staffs when a straight man is pastor?

Anonymous 2 said...

Isn’t it misleading to characterize the living situation of the Episcopal priest and the Episcopal Deacon described in this post as an example of clericalism, i.e., a claim of “actual privilege and entitlement not afforded heterosexuals”? Isn’t the reality that they likely had that living arrangement not because they claimed a privilege and entitlement “not afforded heterosexuals” but because at that time they themselves were_denied_a “privilege and entitlement afforded heterosexuals” but “not afforded homosexuals,” namely the “privilege and entitlement” of marrying one another?

Please understand that I am not commenting on the issue of same sex marriage but questioning whether the example really works to illustrate clericalism. It would only work as an example of clericalism if they insisted on living together without marrying when they could in fact have married.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

Anonymous on August 31, 2018 at 6:17 PM
"Close quarters" in parishes and schools with 97% female staffs can be "dangerous" to straight men. Do we stop having women on parish/school staffs when a straight man is pastor?"

The women staff don't live in the rectory....nor do they typically socialize or spend their leisure time alone with the pastor.

God bless.
Bee

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

Are these guys buddies of yours?

Gene said...

Anon@ 4:22, There is no such thing as a gay "healthy sexual self-understanding."

TJM said...

Gene,

Bingo. You realize the scent of Eau de Kavanaugh was all over that one!

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

A2, I am not Jewish, but I must Kvetch, your comment makes you completely Meshuggeneh.

In some countries there is polygamy. Thus I am a poor want-to-be polygamist and I want my Episcopal bishop to approve that i have multiple homosexual partners. And a sect of the Mormons approves of heterosexual polygamy. Thus I have a right. But when the sect of the Mormons that allows it says, but we only allow heterosexual men to have that right with multiple women, and the polygamist Episcopal priest is acting on clericalism saying that because he can't have multiple husbands, he'll live with as many men as possible.

Thus if polygamy becomes the law of the land but only for men to have many wives, will you approve of homosexual men priests having many husbands to get even in the law? A2 you are Meshuggeneh!

DJR said...

Catholic priest, who is also a Zen teacher, says anal sex makes gay men more "receptive" to Jesus.

https://gloria.tv/language/S2mQ8XjTcSwL3q8noxk8XEbJo

http://www.michaelkholleran.org

https://ndparish.org/people/fr-michael-holleran

It is way past time for priests like Father McDonald to stand up and openly oppose these apostates.

Openly oppose them. Naming names.

Anonymous said...

Neato how one known only as DJR wants names named....

TJM said...

Anonymous Kavanaugh, look who’s calling the kettle black

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

DJR, I deleted your recent comment by accident, but still had it in email form newly restored to me!

DJR has left a new comment on your post "HOMOSEXUAL CLERICALISM AND PRIVILEGE?":

Anonymous said... "Neato how one known only as DJR wants names named...."

Yeah. As in "Anonymous"?

LOLOL.

Anonymous said...

LOL indeed. I'm not calling for naming names. "DJR" is.

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

I do know both of them, yes, which means I know some important facts that are relevant to the alleged clericalism. Specifically, I know that the clerical couple married as soon as they were legally able to do so. The fact that they did so is strong evidence that by living together without being married they were not really claiming a privilege and entitlement denied to a heterosexual couple, that is, the privilege and entitlement of choosing either to get married or to live together outside of marriage. Had they continued to live together despite being able to legally marry, it would indeed have been clericalism as Father McDonald defines it if their bishop would have approved such an arrangement in the case of clergy but not in the case of lay people.

Father McDonald:

I specifically stated that I was not commenting on the issue of same-sex marriage, let alone polygamy, whether heterosexual or homosexual, but on whether the example you gave worked to illustrate clericalism. So, the question whether I “approve of” same sex relationships, whether monogamous or polygamous, seems beside the point. Catholic teaching on such matters is clear.

As far as clericalism as you define it is concerned, another way to focus the issue is: Did their bishop also approve of committed same sex lay couples living together as long as there was no legal right to marry? If he didn’t, but nevertheless allowed the clerical couple to do so, then, yes, that would be an example of clericalism as you define it.

By the way, I had to look up the meaning of Meshuggeneh. -:)

TJM said...

Anonymous 2,

Thanks for confirming your fake catholic status as someone to be ignored like fake catholi MT

DJR said...

Anonymous said..."LOL indeed. I'm not calling for naming names. 'DJR' is."

No? What are you calling for then?

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

Ah yes, the “fake Catholic” jibe. Now which number in the Catholic Blog Troll’s Handbook is that one again?

Anonymous 2 said...

TJM:

Perhaps my background is different from yours. I am sixty-five years old and am not in the slightest homosexually inclined. However, I have known many homosexuals over the decades. For example, during my first year at college my roommate “came out” as a homosexual; we remained close friends for all three years. I only lost contact with him (and several other college friends) after I left England and the timing of college reunions always conflicted with my professional obligations over here in the States. Over the years several of my colleagues and many of my students have been homosexual. My wife attends the Episcopal Church that Father McDonald wrote about. Moreover, I strongly suspect that during my four decades as a Catholic some homosexually inclined Catholic priests have served in my parish or have led retreats there. I have had much affection, and respect, for all of these people, whom I see as being defined by so much more than their sexuality.

Does all this create a tension with being a Catholic and adhering to the teaching of the Catholic Church? The question answers itself. But I am hardly unique in that respect. Living in that tension, however, does not require us to make a choice between accepting Catholic teaching or liking and respecting the homosexual people in our lives.

Anonymous said...

DJR - The end of the hypocrisy of an anonymous DJR demanding that names be named while hiding behind his/her anonymity.