Tuesday, July 30, 2013

One more comment on what the Pope said as regards gay priests.



Did he really address the issue of gay priests?

Apparently.  What did he say again?
"I think that when we encounter a gay person, we must make the distinction between the fact of a person being gay and the fact of a lobby, because lobbies are not good.  They are bad.  If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge that person?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this point beautifully but says, wait a moment, how does it say, it says, these persons must never be marginalized and “they must be integrated into society.” 
The problem is not that one has this tendency; no, we must be brothers, this is the first matter.  There is another problem, another one: the problem is to form a lobby of those who have this tendency, a lobby of the greedy people, a lobby of politicians, a lobby of Masons, so many lobbies.  This is the most serious problem for me." - Source
I do not disagree with the Holy Father.  He is speaking of men who have accepted Church teaching on sexuality and reformed their lives.

Although I'd like to point out that what the Pope said is pretty much how things have been handled and continue to be handled - all along.  Bishops, Cardinals, seminary rectors, and vocation directors have more or less always had the same attitude - and most still do, I am sure.  I have no doubt the powers that be know who the gay/ssa priests are in their diocese; the chanceries know, the personnel boards know,  the nuncios most likely know if a candidate for bishop has any history.  Those in charge also know which abbey (in Minnesota at least) and which religious group is gay friendly.  They know.  If we lay people know - they know.  I'm sure the Pope knows more than he admits.  Pope Benedict had to know.  Members of the curia know.  Cardinal Burke knows some stuff.  The seminary rectors knew and know.  The abbots know.  Your pastor probably knows.  If they say they don't know - it just means they do not have proof of misconduct.

Nothing new.

I'm not going to waste my time discussing the pros and cons of the matter any longer, since it doesn't concern me - it's not my responsibility.  It is what it is.

Over the years, I've said repeatedly that attitudes would be changing.  Church teaching cannot change - interpretation can and does change however.  I think you will now see the Church going along with Cardinal Dolan - "doing more for gay people."  Whatever that means?  I think now you will see priests doing what Fr. Martin S.J. hoped for - "coming out."  Gay/SSA men haven't been held back from seminary, despite the fact the documents forbade it.  Why?  Because "the problem is not that one has this tendency..."   And ,"if a person, or secular priest or a nun, has committed a sin and then that person experienced conversion, the Lord forgives and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is very important for our lives.  When we go to confession and we truly say “I have sinned in this matter,” the Lord forgets and we do not have the right to not forget because we run the risk that the Lord will not forget our sins, eh?" 

What the Pope said is pretty much what the practice has been and will be.  The Pope proposed nothing new.  Everything is possible with God.  There is no limit to his mercy - no accounting for sheer grace.  God's will be done.







What?
 

14 comments:

  1. I do think that the Holy Father is like someone opened the heavy drapes and the windows in a old lady's house to let the sun shine and some fresh air to come through. He is not saying anything contradictory about church teaching but he is saying, "Yea, we have gay priests and a lot of them are men of faith and goodwill, and like their straight brothers should be, celibate. I don't like "gangs," of anyone trying to change things for their benefit and this odd ball witch hunt with a bunch of cackling hens in response to the molestation scandals isnt helping anything." Okay, well he didn't SAY it quite like that but I took it that was what he ment.

    Perhaps now we can look at stopping future molestations by looking at people with a bent for pedophilia not their sexuality.

    And If I read one more person clutching their rosaries and fainting because he mayor may not have said "gay." "Gay" or the goofy and long winded,"same sex attracted means the same thing," a guy likes guys a girl likes a girls. Move along people and go Pope Francis.

    And really, if they got rid of all the gay priests their would be a lot of empty altars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL! You have a way with words.

      Delete
  2. " ...bunch of cackling hens in response to the molestation scandals isn't helping anything..." - Malone

    oh, the chicken or the egg perplexity! It seems that there would have been less 'cackling hens' if there were from the beginning some strong crows from Roosters anointed to protect the henhouse and their brood.

    As Pope Francis has proposed ... the Church does need to ponder theologically 'women' - her gifts, talents, and spiritual nature a bit more. Quite frankly I have experience and read much from the 'man' perspective and nature, but since 2002 I have not read but a handful of available articles assessing or raising concern on the 'scandals' secondary impact on 'women' - on her spiritual growth and relationship w/the church, motherhood, family (sons, daughters and husbands), understanding of marriage and relationship w/priests, etc. & vice versa. I agree some very heavy drapes and windows need to be opened to let the sunshine in ... particularly, in the roosters' dens, to borrow your metaphor.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree....but instead of rooster's we got a bunch of ostriches with their head in the sand. Speaking of women, and their relationship to this scandal, we had a pedo priest and that was way back in the 70's. My Mom thought it was odd that this guy had called a special group of boys in my brother's class to teach them "sexual ed," (sex ed from a priest????)which included drawing penis' on a blackboard (Uh, I got one, thanks, I know what it looks like.) When she called him on it he belittled her and told her she doesn't know anything about raising boys, (though, uh, she was actually doing it ) and that my bro was going to be a Mama's boy. My Mom said she would take us out of that school (she did) and he told her she would regret it, etc. Years later we found out he was molesting kids (the bishop in his wisdom tranferred him to another school...) So yes, women have an insight into things we men don't have and the Church needs to listen to them, respect them, involve them and learn from them. Particularly the rooster's in their den.

      Delete
    2. ... and where was your Father; you speak of your 'mom'. Was your Father (dad) there? Just wondering, for the 'Roosters' should be not only the clerics, but dad's - spouses, brothers, single guys who are to be guardians.

      Delete
  3. I love the bottom photo--I don't know if that photo even needs lipstick and lashes... I know a couple of priests like that, and sometimes they assume a more manly carriage depending on the company. LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I put it there to demonstrate the risks...

      Delete
    2. Oh - and to demonstrate SOP in the Church.

      Delete
  4. Men with same sex attraction are not cut out to be husbands, fathers, or priests. The Church has several documents saying the same, and I agree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jericho - I think there are exceptions to that 'rule'. I know SSA men who are happily married to women and wonderful fathers. Some have been unfaithful, but they repented and remained married, loving their wives and children.

      Likewise, there are many celibate priests with SSA - several parishes are headed by such men.

      I'm not advocating for it, neither am I denying Church teaching or discipline - but it appears there are contradictions to the rule.

      I also think making such distinctions plays into the idea that SSA persons are 'born this way' - that change is not possible. Naturally I disagree with that premise.

      Delete
  5. What Church documents are these? Studies or theological papers? Come back with some studies, non-partisan, that show all of the above or until that time its just opinions on everyone's part.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here are the docs.

      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

      Delete
    2. And

      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

      Delete
  6. Those are church guidelines...and hardly non partisan. Those guidelines are throwing the baby out with the bath water and an obvious knee jerk reaction (referred to within the documents themselves) to the sex abuse scandals. "Well, we sat around and didn't do anything for a very long time and in some instances actually protected the pedos involved..here, let's say no homos can be a priest, at least it looks like we are doing something as simplistic as it is."

    Not to mention that probably more then a few religious who helped write them were actually gay.

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.