Why the opposition to the indult (con't)

I hope that Latin does return to the liturgy and that the Trindentine Mass is brought back. I can't understand what the problem is? Latin is the language of the Church and is beautiful and ancient.

I am a conservative catholic and these liberal complainers really annoy me! They should stop moaning and groaning and just accept what the Church teaches without argument. They should accept that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in all matters of faith and morals. If they can't accept it then they should leave. To be Catholic means to be loyal to the Pope, the successor of St Peter, no matter how hard some of the teachings may be. Some of the teachings are difficult I admit but I accept them because the Pope and the Bishops are Christ's representatives on earth.

I attend a Novus Ordo Mass and accept it as valid but I yearn for the Latin Mass because it is ancient and holy. It's how the saints worshipped for hundreds and hundreds of years. I think Vatican II was greatly misinterpreted and the result is great liturgical abuses. I shudder when people receive the Holy Eucharist by hand, how disrespectful!

As for the teachings on Homosexuality: I agree 100% with what the church teaches. It's gravely disordered and the church should refuse communion to ALL open and practicing homosexuals.

THE POPE IS GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT AND DOES NOT ERR IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS. ACCEPT IT AND LIVE THE FAITH INSTEAD OF MOANING AND GROANING.

Welcome, Proud2bCatholic!

There are a few of us "conservative" Catholics on this site, but we are a distinct minority. Please stick around and continue to stand up for the faith!

Hermeneutic of Continuity

It all depends on one's point of view, doesn't it, whether one is "standing up" for The Faith, or participating in its destruction. Are you so oblivious, here today, that you can write those words, without being aware of this simple fact?

The Catholic Faith, as promised by Christ, can never be destroyed. There are those who will attack it and there are those who defend it, and still there are those who will do neither. All too often I myself fall into the latter camp, and I always find that those who defend the Faith and the Church's teachings are a great support and give me strength and courage to defend the faith even more.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

I hope that Latin does return to the liturgy and that the Trindentine Mass is brought back. I can't understand what the problem is? Latin is the language of the Church and is beautiful and ancient.

I am a conservative catholic and these liberal complainers really annoy me! They should stop moaning and groaning and just accept what the Church teaches without argument. They should accept that the Holy Spirit guides the Church in all matters of faith and morals. If they can't accept it then they should leave. To be Catholic means to be loyal to the Pope, the successor of St Peter, no matter how hard some of the teachings may be. Some of the teachings are difficult I admit but I accept them because the Pope and the Bishops are Christ's representatives on earth.

I attend a Novus Ordo Mass and accept it as valid but I yearn for the Latin Mass because it is ancient and holy. It's how the saints worshipped for hundreds and hundreds of years. I think Vatican II was greatly misinterpreted and the result is great liturgical abuses. I shudder when people receive the Holy Eucharist by hand, how disrespectful!

As for the teachings on Homosexuality: I agree 100% with what the church teaches. It's gravely disordered and the church should refuse communion to ALL open and practicing homosexuals.

THE POPE IS GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT AND DOES NOT ERR IN MATTERS OF FAITH AND MORALS. ACCEPT IT AND LIVE THE FAITH INSTEAD OF MOANING AND GROANING.

Proud:

While I prefer to receive on the tongue (and I am an EMHC), receiving in the hand is valid. After all, our Lord probably gave His body to the Apostles via the hand. Not only that, but how often do we say vile things with our tongue and yet have clean hands? Even Pontius Pilate had clean hands!

Hermeneutic of Continuity

I too like the story of the old nun. What part of the leper's body did Jesus touch, I wonder. He instructed Thomas to put his hand in the wounds. The hand that embraces my brother and sister in the sign of peace is the same that Christ touches.
I remember well the instructions of the Sisters: do not look at the host; do not let your teeth touch the host; let it dissolve on your tongue. I used to observe that,not anymore.
Like you I miss the old latin and formal liturgy, but just sometimes. There is a lot I cannot accept within the church but I will not leave. To the extent that the church is hierarchy, latin maybe the language but certainly not of itself "holy"; to the extent that the church is the people of God, latin is only one of the many.

Dear Proud,

You wrote: " I shudder when people receive the Holy Eucharist by hand, how disrespectful!"

It reminds me of a story I heard a long time ago. Seens, after Vat II, this one convent of nuns jumped the gun on receiving by hand and began to do it before the bishop had given permission to start. Word got back and another priest was sent to celebrate Mass with them rather than the one who usually did and who gave Communion in the hand. His mission was to find out if what they had heard was true. However, the nuns caught on and quickly passed the word not to put out their hands at Communion time. The message never got to one old nun who stayed in her room until just before Mass. Sure enough, when Communion time came, she stuck out her hand. The celebrant stopped right there. Sister, he exclaimed, don't you think it disrespectful to receive the Eucharist in your hand? I did, replied the nun, until I thought about how many sins I have committed with my tongue.

Okay, Bob, I see you beat me to it about the tongue and hand thing!

Hermeneutic of Continuity

The question is, will bishops have a say? ;-) (yes that was one version of the rumor)

And no, not all diocesean priests hate the idea, nor do many in religious orders (hey, we might have the Tridentine Mass here in town once Brother Felix is ordained!)

But you are right, all our discussing it will be for nought if word comes from Rome to put Latin back in the Mass (ala the 'pro multis' decision).

Shirley, this is my prayer for you,

"May the peace of God, which passes all understanding, keep
your heart and mind in the knowledge and love of God,
and of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord."

Don't despair. Remember that NOTHING can separate us from the love of God:

"If God is for us, who is against us? He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else? Who will bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. Who will separate us from the love of Christ? ... FOR I AM CONVINCED THAT NEITHER DEATH, NOR LIFE, NOR ANGELS, NOR RULERS, NOR THINGS PRESENT, NOR THINGS TO COME, NOR POWERS, NOR HEIGHT, NOR DEPTH, NOR ANYTHING ELSE IN ALL CREATION, WILL BE ABLE TO SEPARATE US FROM THE LOVE OF GOD IN CHRIST JESUS OUR LORD." (Romans 8:31-35 and 38-39)

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let your gentleness be known to everyone. The Lord is near." (Phil 4:4-5)

Dr. McCoy, thank you for post this: FOR I AM CONVINCED THAT NEITHER DEATH, NOR LIFE, NOR ANGELS, NOR RULERS, NOR THINGS PRESENT, NOR THINGS TO COME, NOR POWERS, NOR HEIGHT, NOR DEPTH, NOR ANYTHING ELSE IN ALL CREATION, WILL BE ABLE TO SEPARATE US FROM THE LOVE OF GOD IN CHRIST JESUS OUR LORD." (Romans 8:31-35 and 38-39)

The Hierarchy can separate all the people they want from reception of the Eucharist, but they can't do a thing about what I consider an equally valid reception, and that's the one from the heart. I've written this elsewhere, but I feel it belongs here as well. The institutional church and it's doctrines are concerns of this world. Faith and love in Jesus are concerns of a much bigger reality.

I am amazed--and not a little disheartened--that anyone would rate a comment that speaks of a family member's pain at seeing her children called disordered a 0.

This speaks volumes about the lack of catechesis in the American Catholic church, and about the mean-spirited drive of some American Catholics to exclude people from the Eucharist on grounds of (their) orthodoxy and (their) moral views.

What have we become, that as a community, we are so savage and so unwelcoming? How do we think we can maintain such stances and remain in any way rooted in the life and teaching of Jesus?

William D. Lindsey

I suspect they are all from the same seminary group. We have seen both the style and borishness before - it's all cut from the same cloth.

The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy

"Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let your gentleness be known to everyone. The Lord is near." (Phil 4:4-5)

Excellent suggestion, Dr. McCoy. And it makes me lament that we aren't doing a very good job of passing on our rich tradition, with all its nuances and its encouragement of good thinking, in some of our catechetical programs and seminaries. A tradition so diverse ought to issue in a wide diversity of thought, with the recognition that the ways of reaching God have to be equally diverse, and that no one has a corner on the truth market.

Instead, we seem intent on producing little foot-soldiers for the Lord, who march lockstep behind slogans that are chanted ad nauseam, as if the very repetition absolves us of thought....

William D. Lindsey

or brains...rather flying in the Face of the Creator, and not using That with which S/He has so generously gifted us, rather igoring our gifts, and acting like...what?

Sorry--double post deleted.

William D. Lindsey

Shirley,

We're all "disordered"; we all have the impact of original sin in us. I would consider it no less than the duty of the bishops to remind us of it. Modern Catholics have a tendency to downplay the role of sin in our lives; I applaud bishops who are willing to call a spade a spade in the face of relativist values.

The question of liturgy is a completely different kettle of fish. I agree that it's not often a big deal (except when gross abuses are involved).

Prayers and regards,

LH

This is the name of a legitimate Science Fiction book (and a good one too.) Can't you find a different "handle"? Do you see people naming themselves Twisted Oliver or Da Vinci's Code? How about a little originality, and leaving to the author that which is the author's?

LH, did the recent bishops' statement say that we're all disordered?

Or did they single out a particular group of the disordered?

I gather from Shirley's posting that she'd be far more comfortable with having us all called disordered than with having a particular group singled out.

William D. Lindsey

Here is what they say:

The homosexual inclination is objectively disordered, i.e., it is an inclination that
predisposes one toward what is truly not good for the human person.

Of course, heterosexual persons not uncommonly have disordered sexual inclinations as well. It is not enough for a sexual inclination to be heterosexual for it to be properly ordered.

And further down in the document:

It is crucially important to understand that saying a person has a particular inclination that
is disordered is not to say that the person as a whole is disordered. Nor does it mean that one has
been rejected by God or the Church. Sometimes the Church is misinterpreted or misrepresented
as teaching that persons with homosexual inclinations are objectively disordered, as if everything
about them were disordered or rendered morally defective by this inclination. Rather, the
disorder is in that particular inclination, which is not ordered toward the fulfillment of the natural ends of human sexuality. Because of this, acting in accord with such an inclination simply cannot contribute to the true good of the human person. Nevertheless, while the particular inclination to homosexual acts is disordered, the person retains his or her intrinsic human dignity and value.

Furthermore, it is not only sexual inclinations that can be disordered within a human
person. Other inclinations can likewise be disordered, such as those that lead to envy, malice, or
greed. We are all damaged by the effects of sin, which causes desires to become disordered.
Simply possessing such inclinations does not constitute a sin, at least to the extent that they are
beyond one’s control. Acting on such inclinations, however, is always wrong.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Thanks, hermeneutic. I have read the text and do know what it says, but I appreciate having it to read again.

To be sure I understand: was the document focused on pastoral ministry to ALL disordered Catholics (i.e., to disordered heterosexual and homosexual Catholics alike), or exclusively to disordered homosexual ones?

And did the term "disordered" (which is a relatively recent development in Catholic moral teaching) arise in the context of discussions of heterosexual sin and inclinations, or of homosexual sin and inclinations?

I think we're under no illusion about where the bishops' "pastoral" concern is focused. I haven't heard much discussion at all of excluding disordered heterosexual Catholics from the Eucharist....

William D. Lindsey

I suppose you will hear from the bishops on heterosexual disorders when it becomes an issue with society in general or within the Catholic Church in particular.

My opinion is that since the issue of gay marriage has come up in society in general, it was right of the bishops to reiterate Church teaching on the matter of same sex sex. And quite frankly, I was glad that the bishops finally addressed the issue of Catholics using artificial bc as well. This has been a timely topic for quite sometime, and it was about time they addressed it.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Have you ever heard of "rigid personality structure" or "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder"? Now THERE'S a "disorder" for you! It's even listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (IV) used by psychiatrists, but "homosexuality" was removed a long time ago! So Rome is way off base, and years behind the times!

Of course, they were also "way behind the times" when they listened to "off base" shrinks who said that pedophelia could be cured (that's in the manual, too) as well, and kept moving them from Parish to Parish after they sent them away to some expensive treatment that was years behind the times...

By the way, I'm certain you know by now that: A gay person is not a pedophile. And while you are so anxious to "review" "bc" as you call it (by the way, how many children have you given birth to?), I'd suggest you review the Chapter on "Humanae Vitae" in the book "Papal Sin" by that well-known Catholic writer (in good standing), Gary Wills. You may be surprised at how that "infallible moral decision" was pulled off (by the Holy Spirit?) about "artifical" birth control.

And ask Colkoch to tell you about the book SHE read about Humanae Vitae. That one REALLY casts doubt upon the entire question of conflict of interest.

AND, have you, (assuming you are the experienced Catholic Father or Mother of six, since you speak so knowledgeably on the subject) ever practiced rhthym? What's NOT "artificial" about that? Or are you a monk living somewhere whose never had sex and has no interest in it? Now THERE's ANOTHER questionable condition, known as "asexuality", nothing intrinsically disordered about that either, just the "bell curve"; but it does make it difficult for one in that position to judge the majority of the population gifted with a normal sex drive... (which can be quite compelling, and is good for one's health, the docs say), so it does seem a bit natural, and not dirty or sinful as we were told for so long, screwing us all up so much mentally for so long...

The Church meant well of course, telling us how dirty we all were, especially us women, such "founts of filthy, salacious desire" and all that stuff they told the young men, especially those in training for the priesthood. Not exactly guaranteed to get them to treat us with "respect" like the nuns and our parents had told us we were supposed to expect. I was so surprised when a couple of priests came on to me and they treated me like clumsy high school sophomore jocks (of course, they were refused, just like the jocks.) They don't seem to understand that sex is about "developing relationships", not about "slam, bam, thank you Ma'am!". Ah, Desire! But that is what they had been primed for, because they had been told all their lives that we were "forbidden fruit"...just Objects, like the apple in the Garden.

One does have to be careful about STDs, so sometimes it is best to keep to oneself...oh well, you know...(I hope you know, since you do seem to know so much about it, calling birth control "bc" and all.) Sorry if I sound sarcastic and angry about this, but lives have been ruined. (Or at minimum, drastically changed.) Millions of human lives. It is not something to be arrogant about.

Shootingstar~ you are even more beautiful when you are angry.

Have you ever heard of "rigid personality structure" or "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder"? Now THERE'S a "disorder" for you! It's even listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (IV) used by psychiatrists, but "homosexuality" was removed a long time ago! So Rome is way off base, and years behind the times!

You are assuming that the Vatican is using "disordered" in the same sense as psychiatry is. Reading the documents by either the bishops or in the catechism, it is quite clear how the Church is using the term disordered. The term is used in the sense that something is not ordered as God intended. I daresay you won't find that definition of disordered in any DSM. So, you really can't compare the two.

Of course, they were also "way behind the times" when they listened to "off base" shrinks who said that pedophelia could be cured (that's in the manual, too) as well, and kept moving them from Parish to Parish after they sent them away to some expensive treatment that was years behind the times...

Yes, they were off-base, but then again so was most of psychiatry at the time when it came to pedophilia. For a large chunk of time, the Church listened to the professionals, the psychiatrists, who said that pedophilia could in fact be cured. Of course, when psychiatry started to realize the pedophilia could NOT be cured, yet the Church still shuffled men from parish to parish, then they failed the lay faithful miserably and did untold damage to young children.

By the way, I'm certain you know by now that: A gay person is not a pedophile. And while you are so anxious to "review" "bc" as you call it (by the way, how many children have you given birth to?), I'd suggest you review the Chapter on "Humanae Vitae" in the book "Papal Sin" by that well-known Catholic writer (in good standing), Gary Wills. You may be surprised at how that "infallible moral decision" was pulled off (by the Holy Spirit?) about "artifical" birth control.

And as you many know by now, many of the sex abuse cases were cases of an aberrant form of homosexuality:ephebofilia, or same sex attraction of an adult to a teen/pre-teen of the same sex. And no matter how the decision was "pulled off" the fact of the matter remains that Christ promised that His Church would not teach error in matters of faith and morals, and therefore, the teaching on artificial bc is not in error.

And ask Colkoch to tell you about the book SHE read about Humanae Vitae. That one REALLY casts doubt upon the entire question of conflict of interest.

AND, have you, (assuming you are the experienced Catholic Father or Mother of six, since you speak so knowledgeably on the subject) ever practiced rhthym?

How do you get that I speak so knowledgeably on the subject? All I've said is that artificial bc is morally wrong.

What's NOT "artificial" about that?

You seriously don't know? When a couple uses artificial bc,they are intentionally closing the sex act off to procreation. In NFP, no such thing is occurring.

Or are you a monk living somewhere whose never had sex and has no interest in it?

No, I am a woman who has had some experience in her life.

Now THERE's ANOTHER questionable condition, known as "asexuality", nothing intrinsically disordered about that either, just the "bell curve"; but it does make it difficult for one in that position to judge the majority of the population gifted with a normal sex drive... (which can be quite compelling, and is good for one's health, the docs say), so it does seem a bit natural, and not dirty or sinful as we were told for so long, screwing us all up so much mentally for so long...

WOW!!! Some HUGE assumptions here: first off, you are assuming that monks are asexual. I suggest that you befriend some priests and find out that they are far from asexual. To be quite frank, it is just ignorant to think that priests or monks who are celibate are somehow asexual. Are we that sex obsessed in this society that we think that because a man or a woman who is celibate must also be asexual? That they also do not feel sexual attraction just like everybody else? Are we that ignorant about what the vow of celibacy really is?

The Church meant well of course, telling us how dirty we all were, especially us women, such "founts of filthy, salacious desire" and all that stuff they told the young men, especially those in training for the priesthood.

Really? You were told that? I never was. I am sorry if you were.

Not exactly guaranteed to get them to treat us with "respect" like the nuns and our parents had told us we were supposed to expect. I was so surprised when a couple of priests came on to me and they treated me like clumsy high school sophomore jocks (of course, they were refused, just like the jocks.) They don't seem to understand that sex is about "developing relationships", not about "slam, bam, thank you Ma'am!". Ah, Desire! But that is what they had been primed for, because they had been told all their lives that we were "forbidden fruit"...just Objects, like the apple in the Garden.

Okay, I'm sorry if that was your experience...perhaps you might want to get to know a priest "of today": they are typically ordained at an older, and specifically more emotionally mature age. A priest of today goes through extensive psychological testing before he's even considered for ordination.

One does have to be careful about STDs, so sometimes it is best to keep to oneself...oh well, you know...(I hope you know, since you do seem to know so much about it, calling birth control "bc" and all.) Sorry if I sound sarcastic and angry about this, but lives have been ruined. (Or at minimum, drastically changed.) Millions of human lives. It is not something to be arrogant about.

You are correct, it's not something to be arrogant about. But it's not the teaching that has ruined lives. I myself was born into poverty and my mother nearly died giving birth to me. I was the fourth child of 5 children. So please do not lecture me on how Church teaching has "ruined lives."

Hermeneutic of Continuity

I don't mean to be flippant or offensive in asking this, Hermeneutic, but when HAVEN'T "heterosexual disorders" been an issue with society in general?

Mind you, the documents you're citing don't refer to ALL heterosexual inclinations as disordered. They do refer to all homosexual inclinations as disordered. As Bob so rightly points out, the term "disordered," in this context, is simply another way of speaking of perversion.

We simply don't tag the disordered behaviors that occur due to heterosexual disorder as aberrant behavior due to a person's heterosexuality. And yet, pick up just about any newspaper on any given day, and you'll find an account of a man assaulting his female partner. I never see such crimes labeled as straight sex crimes.

If the same kind of assault occurs in a gay relationship, it's almost certain to be tagged by the media as a gay assault. My hometown newspaper has long had a history of printing the names of men picked up for soliciting sex from other men. It has no history of printing the names of men picked up for soliciting sex from female prostitutes.

Everything depends on how we decide to view such events, the hermeneutic lens we use to examine them.

It might be interesting to ask, instead, why men so frequently assault women and abuse children? Wouldn't it be more precise to tag many of the assaults we read about as another example of male assault of women or of male abuse of children?

My newspaper today has an account of a sting operation in which a whole bunch of people were picked up for arranging to meet what they thought were minors through the Internet, with the intent of having sex with said minors.

Can you imagine what gender all the people arrested were?

And yet, the newspaper didn't speak of the phenomenon underlying this behavior as a male sexual disorder, nor does the church seem to be devoting a lot of attention to this phenomenon. Arguably, it harms a lot more people--and the least among us--than gay relationships do, no?

William D. Lindsey

It goes without saying that those inclinations to rape either adults or children are disordered. But clearly it needs to be said that same sex sexual attraction is a disorder. And the bishops have spoken. Society in general knows and understands that rape is a disorder, to say the least. But clearly society does not know in our day and age, with any clarity that same sex attraction is a disorder.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

I wish I could agree, Hermeneutic, that "society in general knows and understands that rape is a disorder, to say the least."

But the point of my posting was that I don't think society DOES yet know and understand that rape is a disorder or that sexual abuse of minors is a serious problem demanding much more attention than we give to it.

If we did understand that rape is a "disorder," we'd be doing a lot more to anlyze why it happens and how to prevent it. Our legal systems would be overrun with cases about rape and there'd be clear and immediate punishment of rape.

Instead, all too often, women who are raped are told that they have merited the rape, by how they dressed or behaved. There's a tacit assumption in many quarters that men who rape women (and that's the primary and prevalent disorder we're pointing to here, isn't it--male abuse of women?) are somehow not truly guilty, but the guilt is on the head of the woman who placed herself in harm's way.

And if the clergy sexual abuse crisis shows us anything at all, it's that pedophilia--which studies show is in over 90% of cases the abuse of a girl by a male who is often a family member--is not well-understood, thought about, or confronted by society in general.

My point is also that society in general--with the church aiding and abetting it--gives disordered attention to gay relationships that help to build a loving, caring society, while it ignores the really disordered sexual behaviors that are causing pain to so many people.

William D. Lindsey

Okay, you will have to point out to me where, in our society it is still considered acceptable to accuse a woman of bringing on the rape, because quite frankly, I haven't seen it.

And while society does not yet fully understand the disorder of pedophilia, society does at least understand that pedophilia is wrong. And we also understand that rape is wrong too.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

You could start with our military academies, most especially the Air Force Academy, and then you could read up on the University of Colorado Football team, and any number of other athletic programs, such as the LaCrosse team at Duke. I site these only because they are representational of the American ideal of the young red blooded straight male.

After this, you might want to read the studies done on date rape on our campuses, and most especially the studies done on Catholic and other religious colleges. These might be somewhat eye opening.

Who blames the women in these cases? usually the perpetrators, NOT society in general.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

I probably should have made this more explicit. These cases also demonstrate the propensity for these institutions to brush off the victims with the advice they get some counseling, get over it, and don't go all legal and public with their rapes. Don't need the bad PR you know.

Excuse me, I live in one of the cities in question, where the Coach (fortunately no longer with us) embarrased our University and our City by blaming and ridiculing one of the victims on National TV, while her Father, a well-known physician, was volunteering his time as a surgeon helping th wounded soldiers in Iraq. The girl was completely blameless, and definitely NOT a "party girl"! Other women who had sued the University here have been talked into dropping their lawsuits against our Athletic department. Our Coach (hank the Lord) was finally let go and we are stuck with the dregs of his poor recruiting and coaching and attitudes as we try to reshape our football team.

My Granddaughter, who loves aerospace, wanted to go to the Air Force Academy UNTIL the rape scandal, which they tried to shove under the rug for about two years running, ejecting the girls involved and keeping the rapists until the scandal became public and top officials were called to account. Living in Colorado, I heard this on the news, day-to-day, since the Investigation was initiated and uncovered by people here in great detail. (I knew about problems at the Academy and discrimination against women while I was working in Utah, but didn't realize it extended to the cadet women as well.) But these kinds of behaviors have gone on, unfortunately, for women in the military for years. And, of course, as soon as the rape scandal ended, they had a problem there about cadets being pressured unduly to join evangelical Christian groups!!

Look at how BGen. Janice Karpinski was made the "scapegoat" for Abu Guraib!
Does one REALLY think "she" was the only one at fault? Read the news! But, if one is like many Americans, one simply does not care, one doesn't call for accountability, one doesn't participate in our own government as a citizen, in spite of the fact that it is a "sacred" duty.

In my State, where discrimination is more patently obvious and "out there", I am shocked by it, having lived elsewhere. (Actually where is the "elsewhere" anymore?) I feel as if I am in a time warp. It seems to me that there was far LESS discrimination years ago, or am I just more aware of it? I don't think so. I think there has been a resurgence of ugliness and evil. Or maybe it is just a few of the posts I have been reading lately on this site. Very discouraging.

Ahh..understood. yeah, we need to come a long way, but as I mentioned earlier, in society rape is viewed of as unquestionably wrong.

I was reading Bob as saying that these people actually do believe the woman is at fault, but I am inclined to agree with your statement. it seems to me that it is much less about believing the woman is at fault and much more about so-called "damage control" and, as you put it, bad PR.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

double post

Much depends on what we mean by acceptable, I think, Hermeneutic. Of course, it's not considered publicly acceptable in most quarters to blame women for being raped.

But I would maintain that there's still a very strong social climate--and it manifests itself in our legal system--which does, in fact, assume that women often deserve what happens to them when they are raped. There's also a social climate that makes it very difficult for women to report that they have been raped--particularly minors, but also adult women--because they know they will pay the price for doing so. They will be blamed, ostracized, stereotyped as whiners and angry women.

It's still an uphill battle. And it should not be.

Re: pedophilia, I am not convinced that social awareness is still as advanced as it should be. Witness what has happened in the Mark Foley case.

William D. Lindsey

I agree with you on the pedophilia, and I think we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to men admitting they were molested as children. I mean, cheesy petes!, it's still considered almost a badge of honor for an underage male child to have sex with an adult female teacher!! And have you noticed that when those stories make headlines (and alarmingly we are hearing more and more about them), they are not described as pedophilia but as relationships. And for men to admit that they were abused sexually by male or female, is to admit that they were victimized. For some reason, this is still hard for men to admit.

And as to women, the few women I know who have actually been raped were hesitant about coming forth not because they felt they were going to be stigmatized but because they did not want to relive the experience again. It was too frightful for them.

Hermeneutic of Continuity

Hermeneutic, I agree with you: I think there's a strong stigma about males and females admitting they were molested as minors. And perhaps the reasons are somewhat different with each gender.

A point I'd like to press is that I think society just doesn't care as much as it pretends to care about what happens to children. And I do think this has much to do with the fact that women have been relatively without power--in political and economic terms--until recently, in many cultures. Things would be different for children, I'm convinced, if women had more power.

We are great, in American society, about saying that children matter, but not very good at all in seeing children's real needs met. Far too many of our children lack access to basic healthcare and to good educations.

Underneath our rhetoric, there's a certain callousness about what happens to children--especially when children are molested within the family circle by family members. It is often very hard for the child even to be believed, when she/he comes forward with the truth.

My thinking about how we treat children have been influenced by the books of Swiss psychologist Alice Miller. For me, they ring with truth.

My thinking is also influenced by what my students have told me over the years, as I have taught ethics courses in which the textbooks discuss rape. When I am able to build bonds of trust in the class, and between students and myself, students often tell me hair-raising stories of having been molested by family members as a child. These are almost always female students, speaking of molestation by a father, an uncle, their mother's companion--a male close to them.

I have heard enough of these stories in class to become aware that what we know about molestation of children by trusted authority figures is only the tip of the iceberg. And I have seen in some of these students' lives how the pain lingers into adulthood.

William D. Lindsey

Two men walked into the bishop's office.

The first entered and said, "Bishop, I am a pedophile. I have molested more than a few children with whom I come into contact." The bishop replied, "Yes, Father, you have done this before. However, I will move you to another parish if you promise not to do it any more." "I promise!" father replied and he left to pack his bags. Both he and the bishop knew full well he would be back. The bishop picked up the phone and told the PR person that this must be kept quiet at all cost.

The second entered and said. "Bishop, I am gay. My partner and I have lived together for 10 years. We own a home together, we are active in our community and respected by all. Yes, we do have sex!" The bishop responded, "In this you are objectively disordered! (Politically correct for "perverted") You and your partner are excommunicated. Shame on you." As the man left, the bishop picked up the phone and called the PR person again. "We must make a public announcement that same sex sex is always a serious sin and those who commit it are excommunicated"

Is there such a thing as an objectivley disordered mind?

Now, some will say, "Had the gay man promised not to have sex with his partner the bishop would have told him to go in peace and feel free to receive the Blessed Sacrament."

However, both the bishop and the gay man knew that was not going to happen and the gay man was honerable enough not to play the game. He knew, in his heart and in his conscience, that having sex with his partner was no more sinful that a straight man having sex with his wife.

The point is, and it might be difficult or even impossible for many to accept it, but it is not that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters are "disordered", but that God ordered them dis way. It is who and what they are and they are created in the image of God as we all are. For gay or lesbian couples to have sex is as natural for them as sex between a man and a woman is for those who are straight.

For those who say, "anathama sit", I say sit on your anathama!

Thanks, Bob--your story reinforces the point I just made in my posting a moment ago.

There's a totally inordinate--disordered is not too strong a word--focus in the church's "pastoral" concern for gay people. I don't think anyone is seriously under the illusion that the term "disordered" has ever been pointed at anyone other than gay folks. It was, after all, in the context of discussions of homosexuality that it arose several decades ago in Vatican documents.

I haven't seen any offers of pastoral "outreach" or "compassion" or "exclusion" for poor, disordered straight folks. Nor have I seen any serious attempt to ban them from communion.

No, the focus is exclusively on gay people, who are being deliberately and maliciously problematized by church teaching. What I believe appalls many folks about such behavior is that deliberately and maliciously problematizing people's lives inflicts pain on people needlessly.

As Justin Cannon, founder of a website called RainbowChristians.com, states in a recent interview by Rebecca Cho carried by Religion News Service and picked up by many papers, "I've met too many gay people who've withdrawn from the church. I've read too many stories of parents who've read suicide notes from their children who couldn't find a place to belong. To me, (the church) is to address and bring comfort to people. We're here, we're Christians and there's just as much a place for us as anyone else."

The attitude many of us meet among Catholics who are fixated on our "sin" to the exclusion of all other sins, and who seriously and persistently propose to bar us from communion, is hardly welcoming and inclusive. I very much appreciate strong supporters like you, Bob!

William D. Lindsey

William,

You have my support because I believe in what I say and I believe in people like you. I have seen the pain suffered by so many gays and lesbians and it makes me sick and very angry.

My wife and I practice birth control and thus, according to the teaching of the Church are not to receive Communion. However, I reject the excommuication and receive the Eucharist anyway. We straight people who do so are invisable. Who knows? Now, you, too, could chose to be invisible, but that is more difficult for you than for me. I can enter the church and walk down the aisle holding my wife's hand and nobody blinks. I can kiss her at the kiss of peace and tell her that I love her and nobody reacts. But, if you and your partner do the same thing............! Another difference is that most of the married couples attending Mass with me are doing the same thing I am. The gay couple is the exception. Perhaps we should wear a button that says "I practice birth control" of something, just to bring home the point that we have rejected the unfounded teaching against birth control so all could see just how complete that rejection is. I don't know. But this I do know, the faithful, the sense of the faithful, must overwhelmingly reject the teaching on homosexuality just as the teaching on birth control is rejected.

Bob, excellent points. You have a real feel for what it is like to enter a church and immediately sense that this is not safe space for you as a "disordered" human being, or for your loving relationship. For too many of us, entering church feels like entering a lions' den--and the bishops' recent statements do nothing to diminish the climate of oppression and fear.

I like your idea of wearing a button to flaunt the scarlet-letter sin. I've fantasized about all Catholics who practice artificial contraception and/or stand in solidarity with gays and lesbians wearing rainbow sashes on a pre-determined Sunday. If the choice is to keep denying communion to folks wearing rainbow sashes on Pentecost Sunday, such a statement of solidarity would certainly test the boycott.

Where will the examining of sinners to find them worthy of receiving communion end? Are pastors now going to require videos of all the sexual behaviors that have gone in each parishioner's bedroom before the parishioner is welcome at the communion rail? (And if so, will such cameras be installed in the bedrooms of priests and bishops?)

Will we have to hand over our credit card receipts before we come to communion, to show we've purchased no contraceptives?

All this energy spent in making people unwelcome, just to appease the most savage segments of the American Catholic church: can you imagine what we could accomplish if that energy were spent in making folks welcome?

William D. Lindsey

I agree that the over-reaction following the council was caused largely by the abuses before the council. I think that the path towards liturgical unity is definately somewhere in the middle: some Latin (I propose to use more than I believe will be the norm, to leave room for a reasonable compromise), parts of the Mass facing towards the people, parts towards the altar (highlighting the priests action at particular moments: facing with the people for confetior and Eucharistic Prayer, facing the people for the Liturgy of the Word and post-consecration prayers). The choir as a liturgical entity, IMHO, is rightly removed (not to say no choir, just the choir has no parts, except perhaps a meditation chant/hymn, that are not shared by the congregation; and that includes no settings that are not ordinarily singable by the congregation).

And, for the gathering hymn we could all sing Pop Goes the Weasel. In Latin, of course. Perhaps we could even decorate the sanctuary to look like a merry-go-round. And, add acrobatics to the seminary training. Then, why not just call it a circus.

Ya' know, its kind of funny that my explorations are met by certain posters with hostility and not substance. I am open to exploring common ground on the liturgy, but I find this type of comment innane.

Speeking of innane: I know this is Episcopalian, but don't you think we've had enough of such mockery?, first two are video, last one pictures of the same 'event'.

Oh, and, Luv, really, be careful what you agree with. ;-)

Actually, here today, I did watch the video (only one--the other connections did not come through) of the clowns, artually dressed, very respectully and with very dignified stance, tearing up a maps of the world, which they first carefully displayed to the congregation (with the celebrants standing unobtrusively to the back of the altar along with the choir as if this were part of the Homily) and then, as they quietly tore the map into small pieces, distributing the pieces to members of the assembled Congregation. I assume it was the preface to a Homily or some further discussion among the congregation that was planned to take place later.

It did not seem like "SUCH MOCKERY" to me at all. It seemed like SYMBOLISM and ART to me, something your education, as L2L has pointed out before, seems to be still a bit deficient in. There are many types of arts, and you certainly do not have to like all of them, but most reasonably educated people, would not call that a mockery. They might not like it, but only the most disgruntled husband would call it a mockery. I think it was designed to make people think, and at that particular Church, they are probably used to such "experiential" happenienings, which you don't appear to be. For me to consider something a mockery in Church, it would have to take a lot more than that!

For years, artists have brought their best art before the Lord. They decorated their Churches with beautiful paintings and sculpture (even gay artists, like Michaelangelo painted the place where the Popes are chosen--amazing how God arranged to let everyone in), they composed their best lyrics and music for it, they sang their hearts out for God. There is the legend of the juggler who juggled for Our Lady. Your conception of "what is acceptable in Church" seems very narrow to me. But I was brought up by a young man whose most profound religious experience was hearing "Panis Angelicus" sung by a group of young men at a Mass on a battlefield in the Middle of a War on Christmas Eve. What did he know from "propriety" at Mass? Actually, quite a lot. He would probably be grumbling right along with you to see this in the Episcopal Church of his youth!

(You see, life is full of contradictions.)
You males, some of you, seem to like everything "black and white". But we women, who do a good deal of the child-raising, know it's not that way, and when we try to raise children "by the book", it's usually a disaster. The Marines do that in six weeks of boot camp. Works for them; not for us. Even the Marines know there are grays in this life.

It seemed to me that what the pantomime, (as far as it went) was trying to say, was saying, is that God gave us this Earth (and its people) to care for, and we are responsible, yet the Earth is still being "torn apart" ecologically and by War and disunity. How are we, as Christians, going to help to put it back together again? In a few short minutes, (and very gently, too) those artfully dressed and dignified clowns said all that, with far more impact than any sermon could. Yet all you could see was "mockery"!!

I urge others to take a look for themselves. Symbols are an integral part of The Mass and an integral part of ongoing commuication. It did not stop with The Last Supper or The Sacrifice on Calvary, as you know, here today.