"You are getting sleepy...
you feel very relaxed...
you will believe me when
I tell you...
'homosexuality is not a predatory activity.'"
Really?
Hard to believe he said that: "By nature homosexuality is a not a predatory activity..." - Source
What?! It sure as hell is.
I could care less if Mahony gets to vote in the conclave, but don't make up stuff about the nature of homosexuality.
What the hell is wrong with these people?
I think when sexuality -- gay or straight -- is denigrated and repressed, people's sexual expression can often become desperate, secretive, and predatory. We certainly see this in the Roman Catholic priesthood. The latest case involves Cardinal O'Brien of Scotland who has admitted to 'sexual impropriety.'
ReplyDeletePhil Attey's take on this latest news is, I think, instructive. He notes that "Cardinal O'Brien, like the pope, most of the other cardinals, bishops, monsignors and priests, played the same Catholic clergy gay game: ruthlessly condemn and persecute homosexuality in public, while in private ruthlessly seduce male seminarians and/or priests lower on the totem pole for companionship and sex. It's well know – from Monsignor Georg to the handsome new young male seminarians – that if you're on the path to becoming bishop or cardinal, you get to pick who rises up behind you. The problem is, not every seminarian or priest is willing to play that game. . . . Cardinal O'Brien was the most virulently anti-gay Cardinal in the UK. So he deserves to end his hypocritical career in scandal and shame."
I also appreciate Colleen Kochivar-Baker's perspective. She writes: "That these are gay sexual advances is meaningless to me because I don't buy into the whole idea that somehow improper gay sex is somehow worse than improper straight advances. The impropriety with Cardinal O'Brien is the use of his position over his subordinates for access. That's what makes this abusive."
Our gay brothers within the priesthood have to start loving themselves in their entirety. All this self-loathing on their part is causing great harm and scandal. Of course, it's supported and encouraged by our church's dysfunctional 'official' teaching on human sexuality. It simply has to change. The good news is that beyond the hierarchy some excellent (and healthy) ways of talking about sex and sexuality are being explored and articulated by theologians and regular Catholic folks. A 'teaching Church' needs to also be a 'listening church.' My prayer is that those in positions of clerical leadership start to listen.
Peace,
Michael
Oh Michael. You know I disagree, but what can I say?
ReplyDeleteAnyway, thanks for letting me know about O'Brien's admission - I wasn't aware of it until now.
Change the truth of human sexuality? Not gonna happen, Mikey. But you keep up your little protests. It just reminds us that we are right.
ReplyDeleteSo sexual sins occur when one's sexuality is repressed or denigrated, because then said sexuality is expressed in desperate or predatory ways?
ReplyDeleteSo gay sex or fornication won't be sinful if they'd only be celebrated and accepted? It's not the behavior that's sinful, but the attitude towards the behavior which in turn leads to sinful expressions of said behavior?
Man, I thought you were nuts before, but now I'm totally convinced. If sexual sin has to be made more complicated than "any sex outside of marriage between a husband and wife is a sin", then I can't think of a clearer example of pretzeling moral behavior to fit a warped perspective.
You're projecting, Larry. It's you who would be 'nuts' if you said or believed anything outside the premise that 'any sex outside of marriage between a husband and wife is [always] a sin.' I'm not operating from that premise, my friend, and neither, I'd wager, are the majority of Catholics. So keep your disparaging remarks to yourself.
ReplyDeleteAnd Jericho, I'm not saying we should 'change the truth about sexuality.' I'm saying we should open our hearts and minds to recognize and embrace the fullness of this truth. Like I said, this is already happening in the wider church, as evidenced by the strong Catholic support for marriage equality by Catholic theologians and the laity. My hope is that some day our clerical leadership will catch up.
Peace,
Michael
It's not that the Church has a dysfunctional official teaching on human sexuality that's the problem, nor is it the hypocritical behaviour of some in the hierarchy (though that's wrong). The truth is that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, and that these men should never have been admitted to the seminary, let alone be ordained, to begin with.
ReplyDeleteChurch teaching does not change just because majority of the faithful (pastors included) no longer follow it. This is a wrong and false premise already disputed by Sacred Scripture: "For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears:" (2 Tim 4:3)
Sure, a teaching Church should also be a listening Church. Yes, but a true listening Church is an obedient Church: "My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me." (John 10:27)
Also, this is not a new problem. Many of the early monastics spoke of young monks being tempted to these kinds of things, and would have considered it frankly wrong to put someone already burdened with such temptations into a situation that would exacerbate them.
ReplyDeleteYou're projecting, Larry. It's you who would be 'nuts' if you said or believed anything outside the premise that 'any sex outside of marriage between a husband and wife is [always] a sin.'
ReplyDeleteSo I'm nuts for following Church teaching on sexual morality? Okay then - I'm nuts.
I'd rather be the nuttiest guy in Heaven than the most sane man in Hell.
Oh - and I'm not your friend.
No, you're not 'nuts,' Larry, as you're not saying or believing anything outside the basic premise that's clearly important to you. I said you would be nuts if you went against this premise, which clearly you're not.
ReplyDeleteYou seem so eager to ridicule and/or prove others wrong that you don't see and read what's right in front of you.
Also, your hostility toward me around this issue is perplexing. Is the idea of expanding our theological understanding of human sexuality so that it matches what the Spirit is revealing through both reason and human experience in this day and age, that threatening to you? And why, exactly? The church has read the 'signs of the times' in the past and changed its understanding of, for example, how to interpret the Bible, and the charging of interest. Why is sexuality such a no-go area? I think I know why, but I'm interested in hearing both your thoughts and Mercury's thoughts.
Peace,
Michael
No, you're not 'nuts,' Larry, as you're not saying or believing anything outside the basic premise that's clearly important to you. I said you would be nuts if you went against this premise, which clearly you're not.
ReplyDeleteIt's not that it's clearly important to me - it's because it's true. But now that you've clarified what you originally said, I'm relieved to know that I'm not nuts.
Is the idea of expanding our theological understanding of human sexuality so that it matches what the Spirit is revealing through both reason and human experience in this day and age, that threatening to you?
It's not threatening to me in the least. I'm sure of where I stand in relation to Church teaching, and I'm equally sure the teaching will not change.
My concern, believe it or not, is for all the souls that will be lost to damnation thinking that sexual relations between two men, two women, or two people not married to each other is somehow morally acceptable, or will be in some future enlightened age. I'm more convinced that "the Spirit" doing the revealing here is not the same Holy Spirit that guided Bd Pope John Paul's teachings on the Theology of the Body. I'm equally convinced that it's not the same Spirit that inspired the writer of Genesis to say "and male and female God created them"; and "the two became one flesh".
The Church has already reached the fullness of its teaching on human sexuality - at least to the extent that it won't be relaxed. TOB offers greater development on understanding that fullness, but there will never come a time when the Church will say that sex between two committed people of the same sex is a legitimate expression of love.
My concerns are two-fold: one, the possible loss of salvation for the many who obstinately hold onto such beliefs (and enable people they claim to love to think it's okay); and two, the coming persecution of the Church because She will continue to hold out against the world, the flesh and the devil in this area.
I know the Church will prevail because She is protected by Christ. But many of her members will not. And that saddens me.
So there you have it.
Mercury - exactly! And yet they are admitted to seminary and religious orders today. That's what I write about here.
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying your position, Larry.
ReplyDeletePeace,
Michael
The way some here- ok, just one, really- have spoken to Michael reveals more about their character than it does his.
ReplyDeleteThe laity have the right that every Catholic seminary should be rendered open to continuous Catholic scrutiny and comparative audit, and be subject to regular audits that are published annually, by a board just like the one that did the investigation into the Sex Predator Scandal in the U.S. Church: names, bios, curriculum vitae, etc of every professor and administrator, along with every course curriculum and every text book, and a subculture assessment. The Pope should publish a list of seminaries evidencing a mature grasp of Christian Chastity (i.e., a healthy devotion to sexuality within marriage ordered toward children).
ReplyDeleteIf predatory activity sounds too mean, substitute "grooming".
ReplyDelete