Rome and Gay Seminarians: Wounded Need Not Apply
The "Guidelines for the Use of Psychology in the Admission and Formation of Candidates for the Priesthood" released 30 October by the Vatican Congregation for Catholic Education feature a novel new analysis of the danger of psychological “wounds” in seminarians. I haven’t seen anyone commenting on this aspect of the document, which calls for the exclusion of seminarians with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” who show themselves incapable of overcoming this “grave immaturity.”
The preoccupation of this document on priestly formation with psychological “wounds” is fascinating—-and dangerous. It deserves attention. It does so precisely because it is dangerous language, volatile rhetoric likely to have unforeseen consequences for our understanding of what ministry is all about.
In the relatively brief text of the document, I count four explicit references to psychological wounds and the need of those forming priests to identify, assess, and help heal these wounds before a priesthood candidate is ordained. On the face of it, this is a benign and even laudable approach to priestly formation—-and one that has been going on for some time now. Thomas Merton wrote essays in the period immediately following Vatican II about the upside and downside of the use of psychological screening by religious communities. The use of psychological screening of priesthood candidates and the exclusion of those considered psychologically immature is nothing new at all in the Catholic church.
What is new in the current document is its strong insistence that gay seminarians are wounded, and must not be ordained until they begin addressing and healing their wound with the assistance of psychotherapy. The spurious psychology underlying this document, which links a gay sexual orientation to psychological immaturity, and thus to “woundedness,” moves with inexorable logic to the conclusion that gay seminarians who do not renounce (“heal”) their “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” will remain wounded in a way that makes them unfit for pastoral ministry.
In case anyone doubts that this is the analysis the document pushes, she/he should hear what Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, prefect of the Congregation that released the document, has to say about this matter. As the Clerical Whispers blog has reported, at a press conference following the document’s release, Cardinal Grocholewski “reiterated that even celibate homosexuals cannot be ordained to the priesthood” (http://clericalwhispers.blogspot.com/2008/11/vatican-official-reiterates-that.html).
As he did so, he helpfully noted,"Therefore it [i.e., a 'deep-seated homosexual tendency'] is a type of wound in the exercise of the priesthood, in forming relations with others. And precisely for this reason we say that something isn’t right in the psyche of such a man. We don’t simply talk about the ability to abstain from these kinds of relations."
“A type of wound.” “Something isn’t right in the psyche.” “Grave immaturity.” A wound in "forming relations with others." What the Vatican is driving at with its new document, the good cardinal suggests, is the long-debunked bogus psycho-developmental explanation of homosexual orientation as arrested development.
In the view of therapists who once “explained” a gay orientation as arrested development, the man or woman who fixates erotically on members of the same sex has not matured beyond what is an acceptable stage of psychological development for a budding adolescent, but is unacceptable in a mature adult. This “explanation” of the genesis of a gay sexual orientation was decisively repudiated by the American Psychiatric Association as long ago as 1973, when carefully conducted comparison studies of the psychological maturity of gay and straight men failed to show any correlation at all between psychological immaturity (or other forms of psychological pathology) and sexual orientation.
The 1973 APA rejection of this spurious arrested-development “explanation” of “wounded” gays in need of therapy has been repeatedly upheld by across-the-board consensus in all therapeutic and medical communities, until it is now considered incontrovertible. Except by the Vatican, apparently. And by right-wing evangelical Christians for whom biblical “evidence” trumps scientific.
It’s bad enough that the Vatican document seeks to resurrect bad science after over a quarter century of resounding rejection of that bad science among professionals qualified to judge whether the science is valid. In my view, however, what makes this document particularly dangerous is its insistence that a wounded priest must necessarily be a bad priest. For a religion founded on a bedrock principle that wounds are efficacious, this would appear to be a highly suspect line of thought to entertain.
By his wounds we are healed, and by his stripes are we made whole. Catholic churches around the world feature depictions of the open wounds of a Christ who is said to be the savior of humanity because blood flows from those wounds to those in need of healing.
Three times Paul asked the Lord to remove the thorn from his side, and the Lord replied, “My grace is enough for you, for power is made perfect in weakness” (2 Corinthians 12:7-10). This led Paul to conclude that his effectiveness as an apostle was directly—genetically—related to his wound: “When I am weak, then I am strong.”
Over the course of Christian history, Paul’s text has consistently been used as the locus classicus to describe what apostleship and ministry are all about: it is the wounded who reach out to heal the wounds of others. It is through their own wounds that healers learn to see and care about the wounds of others.
Christian churches have historically been chock-full of wounds—of pictures, carvings, windows depicting people exhibiting wounds, of light emanating from wounded hands and feet, of saints holding gouged-out eyes on trays, of saints carrying their gashed-off breasts. Decapitated, boiled in oil, tied to the stake and relieved of digits one by one: we've got it all, and more aplenty. Being wounded is now a bad thing? An unholy thing? Something other than the premier path to sanctity, now?
I think that, were he still living, Dutch priest-theologian Henri Nouwen would find Rome’s new document—the Vatican’s novel attempt to shove all the negative “stuff” of a clerical system badly malfunctioning in the abuse crisis onto the backs of uniquely wounded gay priests and gay seminarians—shocking, indeed. Nouwen, whose identity as a gay man was not made public until after his death, wrote a book called "The Wounded Healer" in 1979.
In that book, he uses the rich bedrock theological, mystical, and iconographical traditions that I have just described to talk about the effective pastor as the wounded pastor. Nouwen employs Jung’s archetype of the wounded healer to suggest that the healer's wounds are an entry point to understanding and solidarity of those who are wounded.
In other words, being wounded in some essential respect, accepting this, and caring enough to reach beyond one’s own wounded condition, is a sine qua non to good ministry. Without wounds, we don't reach beyond ourselves.
Strange, indeed, isn’t it, that the Vatican should now try to convince the world that “wounded” gay priests and seminarians are unfit? Is it possible, I wonder, that the new document is seeking quite specifically to counteract a growing awareness among many layfolks that gay priests are often outstanding priests precisely because they are gay?
Nouwen makes the connection between his sexual orientation (which he struggled hard to accept and apparently never acted on sexually) and his efficacious ministry in journals that were not published until he had died. In the period following the publication of his Wounded Healer book and the posthumous publication of his journals, a virtual mystique has developed around the notion that gay priests who struggle to accept their sexual orientation while remaining celibate are among the finest priests in the church.
Rome seems discontent with that conclusion. It’s a conclusion that “legitimizes” homosexuality in that it implies that a gay sexual orientation is value-free, a given, a wound only insofar as it allows the one bearing it to understand and care about the unmerited suffering of others.
The Vatican doesn’t want that analysis. It opens the door for those who have not made vows of celibacy and who do not have to reject their “wound” by repudiating marriage to accept ourselves and seek healthy bonds of intimacy with others. Rome cannot and will not have that possibility, because entertaining the possibility would call for a reassessment of the whole house of cards of Catholic sexual teaching, with its lugubrious fixation on acts and not relationships.
Better to continue asking gay people to consider ourselves "wounded," "intrinsically disordered" in our very personhood, regardless of whether we commit "intrinsically disordered" acts or not. Better to continue calling on gay Christians to bear the cross in a unique way that transcends the call to cross-bearing issued to all Christians. Better to keep on representing gay people as unique signs of the fallen state of postlapsarian creation.
More’s the pity, in a church founded on the bedrock insight that the healing of a fallen world begins in wounds and that wounded healers are effective healers.
hmm, haven't been logged on
hmm, haven't been logged on for a while, certainly no new name ;-)
My community has been around coming up on a millenium, but only in the US for forty years, so our house here is certainly new by our standards.
I would have suggested
I would have suggested anything by Mattie Stepanic or St.Exuprey's "Le Petit Prince".
Actually, Little Bear, HT
Actually, Little Bear, HT said he went Cistercian. It was a good choice, which surprised me at first but does suggest that he was after the real thing. I think one of the things that made many of us miss him and wish him so well is that there were many moments--and some clues--that he was after the real thing, even if he was starting from a harsh place.
I'd be surprised if Cistercians, or at least newbies, were allowed on the internet, but then I don't know that part.
If he is a cistercian, he
If he is a cistercian, he definitely won't be on the computer anytime soon - at least regularly. Sure, he may sneak a peak if he is in the library or somewhere they have one, but the first 6 months to a year are considered very strict in the noviate. I wish him well and did get used to him. He made things interesting on here and I do think we got to him!
Well, as the seminary uses
Well, as the seminary uses email for communication; and we are encouraged to have an idea of what is going on in the world, I do have access to the computer, but getting involved in forums again would require permission and time that I do not regularly have.
BTW, novitiate is a yearlong, but may be a few years away yet.
jstab, I had trouble finding
jstab, I had trouble finding it again, but HT sent his final (?) message on a thread called "Fare ye well". I got to it by searching for "cistercians". He left it so it was at the last minute, but in a place he could find it again later in one piece..so methinks he will look in eventually if he hasn't before entering. Some of the long-timers on the cafe left him messages, just in case you'd like to catch up or say you're own fare-ye-well back.
One of the real values we
One of the real values we find in exploring the early years of the Church, and especially the Pauline Law-free communities, is this wonderful sense of “been there, done that”. This present debate about gays and the priesthood, and women and priesthood, is probably not so terribly new and may be traced back to the earliest years. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t hope. In its long history, the Church has confronted a number of significant crises and has responded by radically reinventing itself and its forms of ministry - and this was the case even in its first decades.
The Church began as a millenarian sect which looked to an immediate second coming of Christ – an idea that has been unfortunately lost to us. In Paul’s communities this sense of “living on the edge” led to a particular lifestyle that was expressed by the easing of all boundaries between Jew and Greek, Male and Female, Slave and Free (Gal 3:28; Col 3:11).
Ministry was exercised charismatically according to gifts and not according to office. Women clearly held leadership roles, and no distinction was made on the basis of wealth, gender or status. The present world order was after all doomed, and a whole new world was about to be established by God.
Maybe a somewhat similar situation confronts us today. We may not be facing an imminent eschaton, but the present crisis in vocations, and the falling numbers in the pews, would seem to indicate that the future may be tough for the both the ministerial priesthood and the Church as a whole.
Given these similarities, maybe the answer to our present problem is staring us in the face. The Pauline communities were radically egalitarian, which Paul seemed to understand as appropriate for communities that “lived in the edge” – both in terms of the endtimes and culture. Christians were a marginal group that stood as counterculture to the dominant Greco-Roman one.
Perhaps, we need to reclaim this sense of being communities “living on the edge”. Having done that, many of our previous qualms about women priests, married priests and, even, yes! gay priests might simply fade away.
The problem really is not that we don’t have an answer to the crisis, but that the people who can make the appropriate changes don’t believe we have a problem – or they misunderstand what the problem is.
Clearly, so-called “gay priests” are the specters raised by the clergy abuse scandal. Barring “gays” from the priesthood is seen as the solution to the problem – but, as many of us know, many observers of the Church, both inside and outside the Church, have accurately diagnosed the clergy abuse scandal as a symptom of autocratic power without accountability.
The only viable model for the Church and priesthood of the future may come from the past. A return to structures not unlike the radically egalitarian Pauline communities might offer the only real hope of dealing with both problems, the shortage of priests and the clergy abuse scandal.
Amen, Brother Bear! The
Amen, Brother Bear! The Law-free community is just the right way to put it, I think.
As for 'living on the edge'... YES! I've always thought that both provisionality and itinerancy are the ways to go when it comes to accomplishing a way to locate the 'edge'. Alas, the artifice of contemporary main-stream (so-called) religion with all these buildings to heat & maintain, and clergy salaries to cope with (not to mention the bureaucratic and administrative costs of the new "Law") make p&i difficult to achieve. Any ideas on that score? (seriously...)
God's peace,
e+
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)
In religious life, this
In religious life, this particular aspect was called "taking the Discipline" and the instrument was also called "the Discipline". Both male orders as well as female orders generally performed the discipline once a week. It was not done to bring about the sensation of being sexually impregnated, but to tame the sexual urges.
If one studies the History of Spirituality, it is easier to see how these concepts made their way into religious life and those pursuing holiness. We can look at their practices and say, "how backward, neurotic, psychotic",etc....and judge them by our 21st Century standards. But two or three centuries from now, people will be able to look at our actions and probably say, "How ignorant, barbaric these people were." But because nobody knows our desire, our efforts, the secret place in our hearts where we are at our truest self---they will never know what prompted us to pursue these avenues.
Those saints who experienced that special touch of God, like Teresa of Avila---did nothing that "made" God respond to them. This is a free gift of God---that cannot be earned. But because these religious placed God first in their lives, as their greatest treasure---God did not despise them. Oh, by the way, Teresa did not flaunt her experiences with God over those she directed. Nor did she permit those who had these experiences to take pride in their experiences. She felt that engaging in simple domestic chores (like peeling potatoes)was a good way to get one's head out of the clouds and get one's feet back on the ground.
Historically... Catholic
Historically... Catholic brothels were disguised as nunneries; and sex for money was just one more way the Catholic church took up collections. Eventually, the Pope decided to close the Catholic brothels, because he felt is was unseemly for the church to be in the sex trade...
Bill! I am conused as usual!
Bill!
I am conused as usual! It seems that Marie and I had it all wrong on another thread. Thomas is not, as he claims, Jewish! Having just read "Deconstructing religion-speak and wining the war on terror," I"think" I now see! Thomas is not Jewish, He is a Mohamedan Catholic who sees thr O.T. as the Quran. Whatever he is God still loves him and so do I! Wait a minute! Does that mean that besides ignorant and confused... I'm also "intrinsically flawed?" Will God forgive me for my lack of repentance for loving Thomas?
God loves you also Willy D.! And so do I! Well! there you have it! I wonder if being "intrinsically flawed" is anything like being baptized Catholic! You know! Once the water's poured and the words are said, YOU'RE IT and there's no going back! Even if it was done preverbal and you had nought to say abot it?
God loves us all! And so do I!
James Edward
Hey, James, you do know,
Hey, James, you do know, that if you ever decide you want out of "Catholic", there is a really simple and guaranteed way to become excatholic:
Write a letter to your bishop and tell him:
1. you voted for Obama and are proud of it
2. you believe that women should be allowed to be priests
3. you believe that gay marriage should be allowed by the church
4. you believe that the pope is fallible
5. you believe abortion is wrong, but that women should have a choice
6. you believe it is a sin for bishops to have mansions and cadillacs
7. you believe that it is ok to have gay priests, but not pedophile priests
8. you believe that their cappa magma's and ruby slippers make them look gay
--- and they need to stop because it is making the gay community look bad
Did I leave anything out?
Hey COL55! God knows I
Hey COL55!
God knows I love you! Truth to tell, I've been an excatholic since age nine or ten. I don't know if the "scowling howlies" get together and sign papers or such, but I was excomunicated by Fr.Charles Brown, resident chaplain at Catholic Boys Home in Mobile Alabama! If memory serves he did so after several weeks of "confessing" the same sins time after time! He pronounced that I was not truly penatent because I continued to place myself in the occaision of sin, that I can no longer recieve communion or any other sacrament and that I will burn in the everlasting fires of Hell! Outside the confessional he treated me pretty much as a pariah (what ever that is, but I understand it's almost as bad as being excommiuncated!), which was pretty hard for him, since it was my job to clean his rooms every day. He had two canaries and I still hate bird seed and canary crap! His attitude toward me changed, I only realized much later, when he and the Good Brothers of the Sacred Heart discovered that My cousin would soon be Bishop of the Diocese in which we all resided. The private lessons in "manhood," from Bro. Ralph ceased at about the same time as did my visits with Bro. Louis Joseph and "Oscar", his pet lampcord that he used for disciplinary functions! As for my "cousin", see Joseph A Durick pertinent to MLK and "Letter from Birmingham jail! Nice man, played great Sax.! If they signed the papers Fr. Joe prob'ly got them expunged or something, 'cause I went home and to parochial schools 'til we moved away! Still in classes I learned a lot about what can get you excommunicated, just from listening to the Nuns! It dosen't take much, even for a ten year old!
Perhaps you will understand why I feel the way I do about the "Scowlin Howlies!" Then again, perhaps not! i sincerely appreciate your list. however it is of no avail, since i no longer have "a Bishop" Fr. Joe died a while back. I've considered praying for his intercession, but I figure they'll cannonize him and me at about the same time! I still consider myself to be "Catholic" and I've tried to live that stuff the Nun's taught me about God and Jesus and the Magnanimity of the Church, but some of the "Church" stuff kind of catches in my throat. Especially after all the clergy molestation fiasco!
I always thought that the Scowling Howlies would someday offer some sort of "help" to catholics like me, I know that there were ninety of us at Catholic Boys home! They posses such a wealth of knowledge and education on the subject. But! They did give me a gift that lasted for almost sixty years! Cadillacs don't last that long!
Thank you for caring! it's not very "Catholic", you know!
You and my "Baby Darlin'" are my incontravertable proof , that God loves me!
O.K.! Dennis and Boyd and little bear, and Sylvester, Butterfly, Marie, the Annes, Santa Chingada, "Willy D.and and Thomas(even if he is Islamic), joer, all my "Old Friends" now. you find "Old friends" odd?
We've known each other for so long that it seems,
We've shared each others plans and all our dreams,
It dosen't really matter why or how,
Because we've been "Old Friends" such a long time now!
It seems that we have been forever friends!
I don't think we've ever had to make amends!
We stand here side together, right or wrong,
I guess that we've been "Old Friends" all along1
Sometimes it feels one sided, you do so much for me,
But then again, you say I do for you!
I guess we'll stand divided until we finally see,
That, that's the way that "Old Friends" often do!
We asways seem to know just where we are!
Whenever we're apart, it's not so far'
To think that we're not in each other's heart,
And that's 'cause we were "Old Friends".....from the start!
And should we ever meet for the first time, should you say, "Dominus vobiscum!" 'Tis a certainty the reply will be! "Et cum spiri tu tuo!" And yes! I still cross my right thumb over my right index finger and kiss it when I make the sign of the cross! Once the words are said and the water's poured, there's no going back! Only forward!
Thanks for the "push!"
James Edward
James, I admire your
James, I admire your courage, and I am at awe at your integrity, after having read your exposure. Please rest assured that you are not the only one. The majority of the parishioners I left behind in various locations of the First, Second and Third World, have something awkward to tell about their growing up in the Sancta Ecclesia Catholica et Apostolica; I have myself a history of pain and suffering traceable to the same infamous structure of power and control that lies in the few hands of some men who do not know how to respect society, because they have erected themselves into the moral and ethical rulers of all people. The church is not healing, but it has become a barbaric conglomeration of insanity, prejudice, abuse and the spread of ignorance that benefits the further indoctrination of those who have not much education.
I am sorry that some in here will interpret my realism as "anger" though I am sure that there is good reason for any person who has been indoctrinated under the "infallibility" of this barbaric church, to be angry and to express their anger, the same way it is very legitimate for you to say what is in your heart, and share it without concerns, knowing that you are loved, by those of us who know that those hidden things have been happening to many since generations. I am glad that the NCR is an open venue for people like us to finally come out and say what is going on -- even in the event that the messages exposed here are coming to deconstruct the apparent infallibility that the Sancta Ecclesia Catholica et Apostolica had tried to sell for so long while covering up for all of this dysfunction. Unfortunately, the profit involved in being a member of the curia is always too high for those who contribute to the problem, to turn around and stop the machine, because its fruits are too hideous.
Santa Chingada! I am
Santa Chingada!
I am immediatley overwhelmed! I have no idea what personna I display in my posts! I have pain, as do we all! I have guilt,as do we all! I also have anger and "rage" and there are times when they get the better of me! I have taken the better part of a lifetime to understand where and how it all fits together. What you see as courage is simply my struggle to be worthy! Not to church or her minions or government or anyone or anything save God Himself, and my Baby Darlin' who He sent!
"The only thing need happen, for evil to prevail, is for good men to do nothing!" I pray that God guides me to be a good man!
And I pray that prayer with the passion I feel in your posts!
God loves you Santa Chingada! As He does us all!
Thank you
James Edward
James, sorry u were exposed
James, sorry u were exposed to such a whacked out priest who felt the need to excommunicate a ten year old. My experiences of confession are similar, with a bunch of repressed and angry priests supposed to be examples of forgiveness and love! They would tell us, we were going to burn in hell. What could we have done at that age that would constitute burning in hell?
Although you think I am an arrogant and whatever "one of them" priests, you don't even know of the struggles I have gone through and why I became and remain a priest. I actually want to smash the stereotype. I want to change the mold. Obviously the task is much greater than any one individual can tackle, but I'd be happy just to reach a few.
Greater than one individual,
Greater than one individual, but never underestimate the unlimitedness of the Holy Spirit. You have touched me many times in ways that give me hope for change, hope for new possibility within the church.
It only takes one voice to change the world. Please keep being that voice.
Thanks, it truly is hope
Thanks, it truly is hope that keeps me going. There has to be another Luciano Albini (JPI) or Angelo Roncalli (John XXIII) out there! But moreso, the people must rise up, and we have very few leaders in the trenches. The good ones seem to have left or been forced out. We have all this young pompous seminarians quoting the Catechism as if it where written by Christ himself.
I feel like Al Pacino in the Godfather III, just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in! I owe much of my decision to go back to this cafe and the people on it. We need a voice!
Jstab, I'm going to respond
Jstab, I'm going to respond here since the other thread has more screaming and shouting going on than dozing. Also way way too much psychoanalyzing.
I personally was ecstatic when you wrote that you had returned to the active priesthood. Your writing reminded me so much of other priests who bear the responsibility for me refusing to give up on the vision of Vat II. Too bad those guys have crossed over.
I have a sneaking suspicion the next Pope might just take a realistic look at the Church and realize that to continue with 'reforming the reform' is a short path to extinction and not just in the West, but in the educated South.
I noticed with a great deal of interest that Benedict's sermon on original sin is very devoid of atonement theology. The man is either becoming scizophrenic or he is having serious guilt promptings from his youthful experience with fascism. Ooops. I think I just did some pyschoanalyzing.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
colkoch, thanks for the
colkoch, thanks for the support. I really can't give it up and will die trying to do all that these great popes, John XXIII and John Paul I only hoped to accomplish.
Although I like Benedict a lot more than I liked Cardinal Ratzinger, I do notice some vacillation in his teaching. Although he is much more compassionate as Pope, he does like to please the right wing with some rewards now and again.
As for the other thread, yes, the volume is very high there!
Maybe he doesn't want to go
Maybe he doesn't want to go the way of JPI.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
jstab! Let's see if I can
jstab!
Let's see if I can still recite the litany!
It happened a long time ago!
You ought to be over it by Now!
He was "man of God!" Those men don't do things like that!
You were mistaken!
I don't want to think about it any more! You are absolutely correct! I don't know your struggles! I don't know why you became or stay a priest! And you don't know or what it has taken for me to be here today! Or where I am or who I am! AND! I'd venture to guess that you don't really care! But it's only a guess.
If you'd truly smash the stereotype, try responding with to honest pain and confusion with less derision and characterization as ignorant and derogatory! Attack the issue and leave the authoritative arrogance in the rectory.
What I think of you is of no import, in the grand scheme of things! Quite honestly I love you! However I will not sit idly by and let you develop further tendencies toward "Scowling Howlieism!"
James Edward
To quote Rodney King, "Can't
To quote Rodney King, "Can't we all get along?"
I invite you to challenge me if I get arrogant or pompous, but please allow me the same courtesy, not to sit idle when someone attacks and accuses me to be something that I am not - and rather detest. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be writing this. But these discussions help to energize me. However, not to minimize the writing of this, but if the rating scale were working, i'd probably just have given your comment a good rating and moved on! Not that I don't care, but it was more expidient!
Jstab, I want you to know
Jstab, I want you to know how much I esteem you for the courage to be a priest on your own terms in the face of a culture that would like you to leave.
I know something of the feeling. Notwithstanding the tarnish on "the faith" I cannot leave it in the hands of the clerical types who add to the tarnish.
Thanks for enlightening us and staying with us. We are with you.
jstab, I appreciate you
jstab, I appreciate you efforts but you are a voice in the wilderness--and the hierarchy is not listening either. To the broken people I counsel who were abused by a priest they trusted, to the suicidal person who is told there is no one to talk to them today because the priest is "busy" and tomorrow is his day off, to the poor family who is berated because they do not tithe, to the husband who is told if his wife dies bearing another child against medical advice that it is God's will and God will send him another woman to raise his motherless children--all stories I witnessed--there is no face of kindness and compassion wearing a roman collar.
That caring priests exist doesn't help for those who never meet them.
I hear you and agree
I hear you and agree totally. It is stories like that which motivate me to be a better priest - a human priest - one who doesn't look down on people, exploit their wealth, judge or critize.
When is Jesus coming again!!!!
Blessings be upon you. When?
Blessings be upon you.
When? Why, isn't it NOW?
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)
William, The flaw in your
William,
The flaw in your argument is simple. Yes, you can find allies in groups, even so-called professional groups, whose standards and norms are not anchored in immovable criteria but rather are tied to social winds and currents of mere opinion. The fact remains that a billion opinions can be as wrong as one opinion - and truth remains true, no matter how respected or how disrespected it may be.
You may convince some, even many. Numbers and popularity will not make you one millimeter closer to the truth. Only Christ holds true and abiding happiness for us, and His norms for sexual morality remain what they were, are and will be. And no matter how you protest, you know.
Thomas
Thomas, I believe in
Thomas,
I believe in ultimate truth. However, I am quite confident that, at any given point in time, our understanding of that ultimate truth is only partial. I would include in that “our” the Magisterium of the Church.
To the best of my knowledge, Jesus Christ never addressed the question of homosexuality. The only sure conclusion we can draw from his silence on the issue is that he was silent on the issue.
Some will say that, in referring to Genesis in responding to the question concerning divorce, he affirmed marriage as between one man and one woman. However, it must be remembered that Jesus was responding directly to a question about divorce. His reference to Genesis shows him to be a Jew of the first century who held the beliefs common to his culture. In fact, this chapter of Genesis, while unquestionably inspired, is neither historically nor scientifically correct. That, at the point in our evolution when our ancestors passed from being mere animals to humans, the first two humans were a man and a woman who became the parents of all, simply cannot be reconciled with the evidence of science. Since God is the ultimate author of both the universe and Scripture, truth, as the scientist finds it in the universe and as faith finds it in the Bible, cannot be contradictory. To impose upon Scripture the understanding that humanity began when God created one man and one woman is to place upon it a burden it cannot sustain.
Just how primitive humanity saw the relationship between man and woman is something about which we can only speculate. Did they have such a thing as marriage? Did they believe in monogamy? Was there a “nuclear family’ or was it more tribal? Did they have mates or did they simply breed? We can only speculate.
Even Scripture indicates that the authors of Genesis understood polygamy was practiced very early in human history. As early as Genesis 4 it speaks of Lamech who had two wives. The Twelve Tribes of Israel were fathered by one man and four women. And then there were David and Solomon. As late as Deuteronomy, written long after the death of Moses, we read of laws protecting the rights of sons of the same father born to different mothers. There would have been no need for the law if life did not demand it. Monogamy may have been the intention from the beginning but it was hardly the practice during much of the history of humanity and Israel and I am not aware of any Scripture condemning polygamy.
So, while Jesus said, “the Creator made them male and female and declared, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife, and the two shall become one”, we must consider the possibility that he was simply expressing his understanding of Scripture and the norms of his culture.
Scripture must be read with faith and in the Church. The Church has and does understand marriage to be a union between one man and one woman for life. So be it!
You are absolutely right, Thomas, majority opinion does not establish truth. However, we must explore the possibility that our understanding of truth, even the Magisterium’s understanding of truth, is based on the facts as we understand them. Yes, I do understand that, even if a position taken formally by the Church is based on faulty reasoning, we are obliged to accept it in good faith as true. But what if, a position taken based on facts as understood in good faith by the Magisterium are later proven to be wrong? Would not the Magisterium then be obliged to rethink its position?
I am quite sure, if you asked Jesus Christ if he saw same sex marriages as an option he would have said, “No.” I am as sure that if you asked him if he approved of homosexuality he would have said,” No!” I am equally sure that, if you asked him the role played by the X and Y chromosomes and DNA in establishing one’s sex and sexuality he would have looked at you as if you had two heads.
Jesus, in his humanity, even though he was divine and unquestionably a prophet, saw most things as a Jew of the first century. If he were a Christian (or for that matter any man or woman) of the 21st century I am sure he would see things differently.
In rejecting gays, we are rejecting at least one in ten of our brothers and sisters. Would Christ have done that?
It may well be that more time and research is necessary before we come to a deeper understanding of human sexuality. This much I know, I am heterosexual. I have been heterosexual for as long as I can remember. My heterosexuality was not a decision. I was attracted to the opposite sex from as long as I can remember and even before I had any idea of what sexuality was. I can only assume the gay man or woman can basically the same thing.
I have said before and I say again, homosexuality is not the norm. It is the exception. Gays are not abnormal, they are exceptional.
I would agree that any gay man who presents himself for ordination but who also affirms he has no intention or seriously doubts his ability to keep his vows is not a viable candidate for ordination. The same is true of any heterosexual.
The Church has been and is well served by many expectional priests who are gay.
Mr. Glavey, thank you for
Mr. Glavey, thank you for your thoughtful post. It prompts my thinking in two ways: 1/ in terms of what really constitutes Truth and 2/ in terms of the percieved boundaries of toleration.
On the first one, I was moved to consider the catechesis we are undertaking at present for the preparation of our confirmands for Confirmation in May. It strikes me powerfully that the Truth is expressed as much & perhaps moreso in the holy questions we both ask and prompt rather than the 'answers'. When I look at our wonderful catechism I find the questions at least as valuable as the answers and I find the RELATIONSHIP among the questions to be compelling (mine is the Book of Common Prayer, ECUSA 1979).
On the second ... well, isn't that the rub? We can't help but truncate questions with the imposition of boundaries. And we cherish the lines of our faith identities. The tension between our desire to discover God's purpose and the desire to remain faithful to the tenets of our belief is dynamic. And, as you point out, we are 'contained' by and within our cultural hermeneutic.
As a condition of humanity, I can imagine your Jesus-dialog as, perhaps, occurring. Yet, Jesus being Jesus, He seems to have escaped the usual tolerance-boundaries and expanded every one He encountered but looking deeper in to the RELATIONSHIP implied in the outcasts' encounters (that is, AFTER His own conversion w/ the Canaanite woman [Mt 15:21-28]). So I think He would look further into what a marriage means rather than what the law prescribes or entitles. The boundaries of toleration, then, must be relational (NOT relative). Further, the relationship, would need to be life-affirming and God-revealing, as Jesus seems to have taught as the core of His parables and prayer. I think the boundaries of toleration are perhaps beyond what yopu and I can imagine, but which live in the action of God to "make all things new."
Thanks for your prompt!
God's peace,
EMcC+
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)
Hello Bob, The Church
Hello Bob,
The Church insists that Jesus Christ was and is true God and true man - that He assumed a human nature while not at any time leaving His eternal divine nature. Jesus possessed and possesses both a human mind and the eternal divine mind. What Jesus "knew" about homosexuality when He walked the earth was what eternal God has known forever, and at the same time what Jesus knew and learned in His humanity. In His humanity He was culturally formed; simultaneously in His divinity He is eternally grounded in absolute and unchanging Truth.
Jesus never rejected a human person; He did and does reject sin: "Go and sin no more!"
Thomas
I think that Christology is
I think that Christology is just one theory amoung others, and frankly, kinda hard to swallow. How could what Jesus knew and learned in his humanity be outside of the realm of what God has known forever? Further, what is "absolute and unchanging Truth?" Is it the cathechism? The Bible? Can we know it? If we can know it, does that make us gods?
IMPOSSIBLES... The Church as
IMPOSSIBLES...
The Church as we know it is in a coma. It is in a coma, because it is not of God. I believe all this current fermentation is the stirrings of the Holy Spirit. The "spin cyle" is meaning to purify the church from the sin it has gotten itself into. We are all facing the urge for the true Reformation, where there will be no difference between people, because there wasn't any difference ever. The religion of the Theocrats has only fabricated those differences to make their Utopian lifestyle a way of life paid by those who believed in their lies about LOVE, when all they really taught was HATE. The CATHOLIC conferences are supposedly talking about "God", but theirs is a dead god, because that idea is only present in books written by hypocrites who imposed religion based upon the people's fear under the leaders' greed. The true religion is based on compassion and trust among people. Aquinas and many other of the Catholic leaders who built this system, all they did was teaching separation and hate. Look at the writings of Aquinas, and how he teaches gynophobia (hate of women) and xenophobia (hate of people). Aquinas' idea of HELL was based on his assumption that people going to HELL would have to have "dark skins", because of the fire burning their flesh. At all times he teaches the denial of women's dignity and worth. And on that despicable hate, he based the Jesuits' faith in his work. The truth is, there are no "Saints" that we can follow, because they are impositions randomly chosen by the charlatans of the truth, who do not know the Truth and never will.
If you look at the Christological model imposed by the demagogues of religion today, all that is taught is discrimination of others, hate, fear, distrust and last but not least, the manipulation of your bank account to pay for professional clergy. They only talk about love in a demagogical way, but all they do is hate everyone who doses not think their way.
IMPOSSIBLE TO LOVE "UNFEIGNED"
You are told to love one another, but you are also told to hate your self. How can you love others, if you deny yourself? Catholicism is wrong, because it is founded on the insane idea of love one another while you are not allowed to really find out about love on your own. You are being cheated by a screwed belief that teaches you to deny your self, so that someone else can rule over your will. They are only teaching people to hate one another as powerfully as possibly, so that the division will generate idiotic communities of followers who won't question the authenticity of the rulers' theologies.
"LOVE" WITHOUT LOVINGNESS
The teachings of the bishops are long gone out of whack, because they are based on the total lack of awareness of the individual. The only thing that matters to them is that people will follow blindly and "obey". You are only being managed by their sin, but you are told to shut your mouth in the guilt-loaded illusion of your own sin. The Bishops are not holy, they are not a lineage of God, they are men with plenty of vices, who have not learned to place themselves under the light of public scrutiny. They only encourage you to be selfless, so that you won't analyze and stand on some valid criticism of their activities. That is why the people have lost track of the activities of the curia, and that is why the Bishops were able to get away with their criminal activity in the eyes of a perplexed public. Only the presence of free communication has allowed the people to become empowered by the Truth, and to claim their true liberty.
Please reread some of your
Please reread some of your entries. You seem to be filled with more hatred than you are filled with love and compassion. I can deal with Thomas because he is predictable and really believes what he writes (which is scary), but I don't believe he is filled with malicious intent, bitterness, hatred, or anger. You seem like you have a good head on your shoulders and can make a real difference, but you are so filled with anger and bitterness, your message gets lost in translation.
Where is the love?
I read some of these entries
I read some of these entries regarding jstab last evening and said to myself,"self, stay away". My conscience and "fidelity" to this cafe got to me though and here I am. I honestly agree with jstab in his above post; I said pretty much the same thing after a string of santa's rants. A whole lot of truth is bound up in a maelstrom of invective and generalization that, although it did not belie the truth of much of what she wrote but made it impossible to respect. I really don't have a handle on his persona in these threads; but that is immaterial at this point. Maybe James you are right that jstab doesn't feel the pain, that he is an arrogant, supercilious little priest type; maybe he failed the test of super sensitivity but he tried; he had a point to mak; he made it and was treated unfairly.
Some of us who have been
Some of us who have been here from the beginning may have a better appreciation and place a higher value on the level of the dialogue. I have rarely responded to SantaC for the same reasons I have refrained from commenting on some other, no longer around folks. Dialogue is one thing, diatribe is some else entirely.
I also suspect that if the ratings system was in effect some of the diatribe might have been modified. Getting low ratings from people who you suspect may share your viewpoint says quite a bit about HOW you share your viewpoint.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
Thomas, I believe, without
Thomas,
I believe, without any doubt, that Jesus Christ was true God and true man. I further believe that his divinity was in no way diminished nor was his humanity enhanced by this union.
I am not at all sure what that means! I suspect that we have never fully appreciated his humanity.
Was Jesus Christ a man of faith? If, as man, he had full knowledge how could he be a man of faith? When he prayed at Gethsemani, did he know of the Resurrection or was he praying as a human who had put his faith in God and now saw it all coming to a horrible ending which he did not understand? What was going through his human mind when he cried out, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?”
The early Christian Community did not fully understand itself. It grew in understanding as it wrestled with new problems. Was it merely a sect of Judaism? Could Gentiles be accepted? Must they be circumcised? What books would form the Canon of Scripture? What was and what was not heresy?
It seems to me the Holy Spirit did not simply give answers in a vacuum but rather guided the Church to grow in its’ understanding of truth through a process of questioning and considering different opinions. Should this process stop?
If two people of the same sex love one another deeply, is that a sin or a fulfillment of Christ’s commandment of love even as we are loved?
If they should decide to share their lives together would it, in itself, be a sin? Or, would it only become a sin if sex were involved?
If they promised not to have sex, would the Church be comfortable with their living together?
What if a heterosexual couple presented themselves to the Church saying that they wished to marry but not have children or even sex, would the Church approve of their marriage?
If a heterosexual couple did not have sex, would that not be grounds for an annulment?
Why is it that the Church, and we Christians, can be so unconcerned about the horrors of war, or torture, or the death penalty, or poverty, o injustice and greed and yet feel the need to go to General Quarters where sex is involved?
Bob, You've presented many
Bob,
You've presented many questions. Maybe you could clarify which of any of these are rhetorical, and which if any are questions that you sincerely seek an answer to.
Thanks,
Thomas
Thomas, As I have said, I
Thomas,
As I have said, I believe there is ultimate truth but that, at any given point in history, our understanding of that truth is only partial.
Yet, in our “present”, we must come to conclusions based the truth as we understand it.
Truth is something we must constantly seek. The greatest obstacle to growing in our understanding of truth is the assumption we have already found it.
There has been a tremendous explosion of knowledge in the past hundred years. We know so much more about ourselves, our make-up and our history. We have grown in our understanding of Scripture.
Those who, in the past, drew the conclusions which have become Church teaching were not privy to the information we have today. Would they have come to the same conclusions if they had had that understanding? I don’t know.
What I am suggesting is that we need to constantly re-evaluate our positions as our knowledge and understand grows and modify our positions as justified by this new understanding.
We often hear, “the Church teaches….”. Why does the Church teach this? "Because the Church teaches it" is no longer an acceptable answer. What are the reasons behind what the Church teaches? We are intelligent, reasonable adult human beings who have a right to know the reasoning behind what the Church teaches.
I am not asking for the Church’s position on any given topic, I am asking for an explanation of why and how that position was reached. I am assuming logic and reasoning were involved in the decision. I am asking the Church to teach and not simply tell.
Having said that, you can feel free to answer any or all of my questions and I will feel free to ask more questions if need be.
Thanks,
Bob
Bob! Were I you, I'd not
Bob!
Were I you, I'd not quote any of the following to impress my friends with my I.Q.! But just in case it may be somewhere in the neighborhood, what the hey!
My answer to all of your questions, for me anyway, is contained in two modern Americanisms! 1. "It's just good business!" AND, 2. It works for me!
The business of the church is the propagation and perpetuation of the church! So that 's WHAT the church teaches! What the church teaches, has propagated and perpetuated the church, for 2000 years! That's WHY the chuch teaches! Judging from the questions, I think you can fill in the blanks! (think selfpreservation!)
And Butterfly!
Thomas builds no walls of mortar and clay! He has found a "safeplace" and that is where he will stay! He never ventures out of his "safeplace," He carries it with him everywhere! And defends it zealously!
We are all chameleons!
Chameleon's a funny creatue, always changing colors,
To hide himself away from life, and the prying eyes of others!
Slow to move from place to place, he fears lifes constant changes,
Whenever something threatens him, his color rearranges!
First you see him blue, then green, he changes willy-nilly!
Then Brown, then green, Then Blue again.
What color is he?.............Really!
The ablilty for most of us to change colors, is provided by our God given free will. Thomas has been conditioned to a single color! That is where he is "safe!" He indeed builds walls!......However!
Walls made of stone, will crumble and fall.
Fences made of wood will rot someday!
But walls you build, of time, and thought, will not be climbed.
They're sure to keep me away!
Hide all of your sorrow and hide all of your joy!
Lock all of your dreams away with a key!
Though walls you've built of time, and thoughts cannot be climbed,
Those walls will never let you be free!
He's just a man, quite a lonely man, he's only done what he must do.
He's going, never knowing just exactly where he stands,
Still he knows quite well he stands away from you!
And though he's much afraid he will go by himself,
Yes! though he's much afraid he'll go alone!
And with his bricks of thought and time, somewhere inside his mind,
He'll build more walls, all his own!
I pray that all of my gibberish helps in some way or another!
God loves Thomas as He does us all! And I know that we are trying!
James Edward
James Edward, I'm just
James Edward,
I'm just reading your response to mine to our dear friend Thomas. Yes, we love him and God loves him, and God loves you and loves me, and God's love is eternal and brilliant, more brilliant and shining and loving than tradition or doctrine or laws.
The law is of love when it pertains to God and if our lips should speak of love 'twould be because we have finally met and danced in His glorious light of love. Some of us live long enough to experience this dance in His light. His kingdom is always at hand and our hands just need to grasp onto His that longs to lead us out of every form of bondage.
Hi Bob, Your comments make a
Hi Bob,
Your comments make a lot of sense to me. Thomas didn't answer or reply to yours because he is not in communion with his fellow Catholics. He hides behind the brick wall of fundamentalism. He believes he is a real Catholic, and since we have a lot of unanswered questions he presumes we are not real Catholics. You see, he thinks asking questions is disobedience to Church authority. He answers to that Church authority, while we answer to the only real authority, the Resurrected Jesus Christ.
He will ask you a lot of questions, throw in some cheap shots against you personally and try to back you in a corner, but he will never try to answer any question that is really valid because all around him and in his mind is a huge wall made out of rocks and cement that is thousands of years thick with stubborn resistance and defensiveness of the Church's buildings, not with regard for the People of God or the challenge to finding Truth which is larger than any human view can contain or capture.
As you are finding out, as most of us have here, the idea of real community and dialogue are not active in his consciousness and so that is reflected in his personality, the substance of which is likened to a medieval brick wall. While many here have attempted with reason, love and faith to chip away at the brick wall to get to the human being behind it and free him from fundamentalism he nevertheless makes more mortar to plug in the holes.
Butterfly, you left
Butterfly, you left out:
When you back him into a corner, he just stops responding and moves on to something else.
Thanks butterfly. I
Thanks butterfly. I re-posted basically the same thoughts on his post "Dozing". I hope he responds.
Bob
Thomas, what I find so
Thomas, what I find so interesting about your posts is that you are very clearly talking about yourself, and yet you either cant or wont see it.
You place your faith in man (clergy, catechisms) and vigorously defend that choice in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary, then preach to the rest of us to place our faith in christ.
You preach about sexual morality of others, then pontificate that we forgive and ignore the same behavior in the clergy.
You acknowledge that group opinions are frequently wrong, but are unwilling to consider that yours(and your clergy) may one of the ones that are wrong.
The clergy consistantly lie to us, and you consistantly say ignore their lies, but condemn the lies of a group you dont approve of.
Then, when you cant defend your position, you simply stop responding.
Are you one of our bishops?
Yes! Very astute!!
Yes! Very astute!! Wonderfully expressed!!! And all of that idolatry seems to be based on the central obsession with a central dichotomy: the DIVISION between the 'human' and the 'Divine' (see above).
But, you know, I agree w/ another poster (was it *jstab*?) - Tommy does it all just for attention, I think. I've met others who fear disappearance. Sad, really ...
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you... (Jn13:34)
I think Christ was more
I think Christ was more concerned with compassion and love than he was fixated on sexual acts. The Church is remiss in its fixation and scapegoating of homosexual priests and sexuality. We are humans, not robots. I can't begin to understand the arrogance of people who know the "Truth" as if it were a personal revelation they are privileged with having. May God be merciful in judging your ignorance and arrogance, thomas.
For those looking for "HT"
For those looking for "HT" aka "here today," he commented in late July that he was entering a monastery in August. He didn't state what religious community it was that he was entering, but it was probably a newer and more conservative one. As a postulant and seminarian---he won't have much time to get on the internet. Although, a few weeks ago, I thought that I spotted an article that he wrote on a certain topic.
The person who wrote the post signed it "a seminarian" and it sure sounded like "HT". In fact, he wrote two postings----and received quite a bit of a reaction, as only "HT" can. I wrote to him as well and told him to dust off his "Imitation of Christ" by Thomas a' Kempis or to go find somewhere, in the monastic library, the book, "Pride, Thief of the Holocaust" and read it many times. It would do him much good.