|
|
Enemy of the Church? |
|||||
|
Lavender Mafia dilly dilly
Archives
Click Here to Email Mike
Archived Highlights
Toolbox(Stolen from Sursum Corda)
Gay Catholic
Frequent Visits
Blog Listings
Catholic News
Newspapers |
Friday, May 31, 2002
At Least I Think its CatholicI could have sworn I had permalinked to Maureen Mc Hugh's blog where she has this radical idea of discussing Catholic solutions to The Situation. C'mon, Maureen! Just point the finger of blame like the rest of us are doing! It's a lot more fun! So her post is a good occasion to post a rerun of an earlier post (link at the left) called A Modest Solution. There's no power shifting. Clergy are being clergy. Laity are being laity. Doors are opened and everybody is on notice that sleaze will see the light of day. Here it is... Of all the ideas floated to the media this week, the one that has the most promise seems to be the idea of lay involvement in personnel decisions. I have my concerns - and have heard others - about exactly which lay people are involved and to whom are they accountable. Fr. Richard Neuhaus was expressing some concern this morning on Meet the Press that lay boards not contain people who wish to undermine the mission of the Church (as he sees it). On the other hand, I fear that lay involvement may be limited to folks who are only accountable to the episcopate and no more willing to bring wrongdoing to light. (Ray Flynn comes to mind here. I get the impression that if Cardinal Law had dead bodies buried in his basement, Ambassador Flynn would be explaining to us how we can't be absolutely sure His Eminence actually meant to harm them. ) So how do we create a process for lay involvement that includes both accountability to Rome to ensure authentic Catholicity (and, let's face it, to appease uber-conservatives) and accountability to the laity to help restore trust in the leadership of the hierarchy? I have a modest proposal. Each diocese should have a lay oversight and advisory board with at least some of the members elected by the laity - perhaps by members of parish councils. These elected members don't even have to be a majority - say two or three members of a 9-to-15-member board. The rest of the positions could be appointed by the Bishop to ensure the board has expertise in areas the Bishop deems useful. The board should have complete access to the workings of the diocese in personnel and financial matters. It's role, however, should be purely advice and oversight (OK, perhaps the laity should have a bigger role than advice and oversight but that's the sort of "deal-breaker" that could delay reform - and with the lives of children and adolescents in the balance, delay is unacceptable). The final authority for decisions should rest with the Bishop. Lay accountability would be accomplished because if members of such a board saw anything sleazy in the operation of the diocese, they would be able to blow the whistle to the community at large through the media. The willingness and ability to blow the whistle would be guaranteed by the fact that at least some of the board members were elected. This would hopefully end what I have referred to earlier as the culture of secrecy by making it clear that secrets aren't likely to stay secret. T.G.I.E.Thank goodness its...email! Some fine email that requires little comment will allow me to blog quickly, then go back to that pesky day job that is screaming for my attention. As for my request for a quote where Andrew Sullivan make the assertion that homosexuality has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality, Justin Katz argues that it's more of a pattern than a single quote. He writes: ...But I'm also sure that Mr. Shea will be able to answer your question For two examples, which are probably in his blog archives somewhere for These are just two statements that I can remember immediately, but I'm Michael Shirley pointed me to this post in his blog about the fairly gracious response of Bishop Jenky to a series of incidents there. Michael sums it up with: Of course, being newly installed he's in the enviable position of having had nothing to do with any of the priests in question. Still, Peoria seems to have been graced with a good bishop at last. Makes sense. I've heard that Bishop Jenky is a Notre Dame boy. Francis Mooney wrote to thank me for the link. Appreciation is always, well, appreciated. Thursday, May 30, 2002
I didn't think I was taking Kathy Shaidle to Task......but re-reading this mornings post I can see how Mark Shea (or "any reasonable person") could take it that way. He writes: Mike seems to have the idea that those of us who are noting that homosexuality seems to have something to do with abuse of boys are somehow concluding that all homosexuals are child abusers. There is, however, a difference between essays that try to analyze and suggest solutions to gay related problems (it appears Mark missed - or ignored - this post from yesterday) and essays like this one whose emphasis appears to be ensuring that blame is fixed on homosexuality per se and, in turn, on all gay priests and all gay folk. I used her post as inspiration to respond to the latter. It was not my intent to take her to task. To Kathy, I'm sorry for my error. And to Mark, I think writing to Andrew Sullivan is a splendid idea (one that would increase traffic to this blog) but it would be helpful to find one quote where Mr. Sullivan asserts that homosexually has nothing whatsoever to do with The Situation - I couldn't find an example - even in your critiques. Its kinda starting to look like a straw man to me. I don't want to be scaped...and I don't think I act like a goat...That headline is based on a post by Kathy Shaidle which began "OK, but I'm thinking: don't wanna be scaped? Don't act like a goat." (I can't find her archive so I won't link directly to the post) If gay men make up approximately 30% of all priests, then it seems defensive and disingenuous to protest that homosexuality has nothing to do with The Situation. Fair enough. I won't attempt to say that homosexuality has nothing to do with The Situation. I will, however, say:
It's Baaa-aaack! (And It's Still Scary)There is no Anna Kournikova in the WNBA. Not even close. But whether its in women's professional basketball or anywhere else, you're unlikely to see anything quite as ugly as Debbie Schlussel's annual rant about the WNBA. Wednesday, May 29, 2002
How can one discuss gay related concerns in the Church and seminaries without gay baiting?John Leo shows you how. So does Fr. Donald Cozzens. Farewell PadreI already wasted way too much time today writing a lengthy email unrelated to the blog. Most likely, I will settle for sending you to Onealism where Fr. Shawn O'Neal has made his last post. He concludes with a lovely prayer, a rant against extremists on the right and the left (megadittoes Padre) and, for those hyperventilating in terror of the "Lavender Mafia", definitive proof that at least one priest out there isn't gay: Maybe women will never be ordained...but I know that I will certainly invite some of my female friends to come over to my rectory in future years (if/when I am assigned to serve as a pastor) so they can give me some decorating advice. He sent me an email that closed with the following simple, but beautiful prayer request: Pray that I am good servant, a humble shepherd, and that I always deliver what the Holy Spirit wants me to say rather than something that is merely on my mind. I'll ask that for myself as well. Peace, Padre. Tuesday, May 28, 2002
Blogwatch Part IITimothy Mason has an interesting blog with short, pithy posts - as opposed to the long-winded fare you find here. Lane Core - about as long winded as I am - just more conservative. Film ReviewCheck out review of the documentary film Family Fundamentals. I won't be holding my breath waiting for it to play anywhere south of San Antonio anytime soon. And thanks to Michael Shirley for pointing it out on his blog - and for the nice comment about yours truly. Welcome/BlogwatchMichigan Catholic looks like the kind of conservative blog that'll really get my panties in a bunch! Cacciaguida is a blog with a pretty descriptive subtitle: "Catholicism. Conservatism. Law. The Middle Ages. Opera. If you like any of these, you may like this blog. If you like any two of them, you should probably bookmark this blog. If you like all five, we definitely need to meet." A bit of clarity from the mailbag...John at Disputations writes the following: Mike Hardy took a little offense to my infelicitously expressed reaction to something My words were these: "I think there are two very bad ideas in what Mike writes (which are not necessarily what Mike thinks)." By which I meant, "Implicit in what Mike wrote are a couple of bad ideas, which he doesn't necessarily endorse." However, Mike read it -- not unreasonably -- as meaning, "What Mike writes is not necessarily what Mike thinks." I apologize for my verbal clumsiness and any offense it has given. Accepted. I've been known to be verbally clumsy on occasion as well. Fr. Cozzens sounds like he knows what he's talking aboutthe bestselling author of The Changing Face of the Priesthood is interviewed here. Thanks to Anthony Marquis at Veni Sancte Spiritus for pointing the article out on his blog. Q:So if we shouldn't ban gay priests, should the church do anything about the gay subculture that apparently exists in some circles of the priesthood? A:This is a very sensitive issue. Just as there are straight priests who do not take celibacy and chastity seriously, so there are also some gay priests who do not take celibacy and chastity seriously. When we find examples of gay priests who seem to almost make a mockery of even an attempt to be celibate, we run the risk of coloring with the same brush gay priests in general. So, are there straight priests who have used the priesthood as a shelter for their sexual activity? Yes. Are there gay priests who have used the priesthood as a shelter or screen for a life that is incompatible with chastity and celibacy? Yes. Do more gay priests seem to have a cavalier approach to celibacy than straight priests? I don't know. Some think that there is evidence to support that, but we just don't know. The real problem is pointing out to all seminarians - and it certainly is possible that gay seminarians have been more remiss in this department - that celibacy is not the same as bachelorhood! Amy Welborn has a nifty comment system on her blog!I'm so jealous! I want a comment system on my blog too! (On second thought, I'd just as soon make some of the verbal queer bashers who write get their own blog) I'll just have to settle for reposting emails, editing them to completely distort the author's intent, then criticizing the heck out of them! Just kidding...really. My ears are burning.....and they probably should have been since last Tuesday. But if I had noticed this post by John DaFiesole in Disputations last week, I wouldn't have anything to write about on a very uninspired morning after two long days of driving! So we'll let John write and while I criticize... More to my point, though, I think there are two very bad ideas in what Mike writes (which are not necessarily what Mike thinks). Ouch! What I write isn't necessarily what I think? I can only guess what John is referring to here. There are a couple of areas in Church teaching where I am...well...less than convinced. I wouldn't say I have the silver bullet argument that disproves them, mind you...I'm just not convinced. I have decided to stipulate to Church teaching and discuss its ramifications rather than attempting to debate the teachings themselves. I have been most up-front about that! (At this point I'm tempted to digress about how few people would be left in the Church if everyone who felt as I did about some Church teaching were to up and leave as some of the uber-orthodox wish we would but I'll hold my tongue). For the record I'll say this: The only place in this blog where I have not said what I really think is the rhetorical question in its title (Am I an enemy of the Church? Absolutely not! No question about it!). Other than that, what you read on this blog is what I think - not merely what I want you to think. Sense and nonsense (the title of the post) Nonsense? Here? Surely you must be mistaken! Mike Hardy writes, regarding the seal of the confessional coming under legal attack, "if priests can't keep the seal of the confessional then nobody with any sense will confess anything that can be used against them... Forcing priests to break the seal might--might provide evidence for a finite number of cases before folks wise up and stop confessing." Based solely on anecdotal evidence, I'd say folks have by and large already stopped confessing. That's a fair observation but the point of the post was that is silly to think that forcing priests to break the seal of the confessional is going to result in a treasure trove of information for solving crimes. And, while giving cheap acknowledgment of the difficulties of living with a fallen human will, I think that anyone who is more concerned over what the state will do to them for confessing their sins than what God will do to them for not confessing them is in desperate need of immediate and profound catechesis. The most recent attacks have suggested that priests turn in penitents who confess to abusing kids. These are folks who are in " desperate need of immediate and profound catechesis". Perhaps the confessional would be a good place to get them started.
Saturday, May 25, 2002
More thinking than linking (or writing) in the next two daysI must leave Albuquerque and make the long drive back to the Texas Gulf Coast. Maybe over the next two days I'll be able to gather my thoughts on the topic of community. Sursum Corda has been focusing on the topic and has gotten a lot of interesting mail about it ( and women's ordination as well). One in particular from Eve Tushnet has been on my mind the past couple of days. I'm trying to figure out what Nixon thinks are the boundaries of the Catholic community, and how he goes about discerning those boundaries. As a gay Catholic man, much of the past couple of months has been, at least indirectly, discerning the boundaries of community. For example, apparently at one time the infamous Paul Shanley was a member of Dignity - as I still am. This prompted Catholic League blowhard William Donohue one time on national television to scream "Shanley's your boy! Shanley's your boy!" at Dignity/USA president Mary Louise Cervone. (This attempt to bully Mary Louise and Dignity out of the conversation prompted me to substantially increase my contribution to Dignity in spite of the fact that it manages to do something to tick me off about once a month or so). Needless to say, I don't think the fact that Paul Shanley, at one time, was a member of Dignity (just as he was, at one time, a member of the Archdiocese of Boston) or presided over masses for Dignity (just as he once did for the Archdiocese of Boston) makes Shanley "my boy". Yet there are the orthodoxy police with the strictest and most controlling possible interpretation of the concept of submission of the intellect and will who insist that I'm not truly part of the community - I'm not "their boy" - because there are one or two things that I just can't quite understand and accept about church teaching and feel that honesty demands I admit it during discussions on this topic. With 2865 paragraphs of in the Catechism of the Catholic Church you have to wonder how many Catholics would be left in the community if disagreement with two or three paragraphs was the uniform standard by which people are expelled. I hope to spend the long and tedious drive from Albuquerque to Corpus Christi sorting out the grand unifying theorem on all of this. Until then, Peace. Is it Playing in Peoria?Michael Shirley who is or was living in the Peoria Diocese suggests I am possibly mistaken in labeling him "slightly right of center" (those darned labels again!) and has links to Andrew Greely (great essay by the way)and "Enemy of the Church?" in his blog to back it up! Friday, May 24, 2002
New (to me anyway) Catholic BlogsWhy don't I just admit that most of the time Gerald Serafin's list of Catholic Blogs is more complete than mine is? I'm trying. I'm hoping to write yet another article on Catholic blogging (my first - but one, I'm sure, of many) and put it someplace that hasn't already gotten one from a much better writer. And I'd love to justify listing "Enemy of the Church?" as a great portal to the world of Catholic blogging. Josh Mercer isn't writing much about Catholicism yet but from his links I suspect he's Catholic. Francis Mooney has a nice, fairly spiritual blog called Xavier+ Frank Purcell, a member of the Russian Catholic Church writes ArisBlog. Didn't know there was such a thing either? Then hop on over to Frank's place and find out a little more about it. Michael Shirley's I Should Be Reading looks like it will provide some nice, slightly right-of-center reading without getting too nutty. Mark Cameron, a Canadian who is active in politics has a promising new blog as well. It is called Mystique et Politique. And on the right, its Pat Tyler at Quid Novi
SurpriseMr. Ho doesn't agree with my assessment of his earlier comments. I stand by all but one of them. The reason I avoid the word "hate" like the plague is because I can't read minds - not even Mr. Ho's - so I probably should have avoided it earlier as well. Mr. Ho may not find it convenient to believe that homosexuality is a characteristic with unknown cause and no known "cure" (and hence immutable) or that people with homosexual inclinations are commonly labeled homosexual or gay regardless of whether they are known to be sexually active but these are facts nonetheless. Mr. Ho's assertion that the words "gay" and "homosexual" don't include all people with same sex attractions is about as valid as former President Clinton's assertion that "sex" doesn't include anything he did with "that woman...Miss Lewinsky". I suspect most rational people join me in agreeing to disagree with Mr. Ho on those points. I Took the Muppet Quiz
BlogwatchAfter today, Roger Ho just might not be one of my favorite blogs. Three comments; Pope accepts Weakland's resignation. My question to this Bishop is, even if he didn't molest anyone, does he believe the homosexual desires he apparently acted upon were disordered? If so, and he is sincerely sorry for what he did, he should be forgiven. What if he's just sincerely sorry for what he did? Also If the California Legislature votes to pass a bill that allows people engaged in an active homosexual "deathstyle" to be foster parents then I better not see one priest in this state imprisoned for pedophilia or one Bishop sued for trying to cover it up. At least Mr. Ho doesn't come right out and say that the only thing homosexual foster parents want to do is fondle their charges. (Do I need to bother to say they don't?). It sure as heck looks like he wants you to believe it though. There's also this if the priests quoted in this decidedly slanted article are not acting upon their desires, and they are upholding the teachings of the Church, they aren't "gay". Baloney! There's a certain over-used 4-letter word I try to avoid on this blog: "hate". Looking at the comments above, coming from a lawyer who is presumably bright enough to know better, you can see why many folks often find that word to be appropriate. CorrectionNote to Gerald Serafin: I believe the second person from the left is the late John Belushi. More Gay Formation IssuesNow I’ve been able to reconstruct my response to Steve Mattson’s comments (note: I don't respond to all of them - you'll have to visit Steve's blog to see his entire response) on My post on formation of gay seminarians. Steve writes: I wonder if anything in the socio-sexual and spiritual aspects of our lives cannot ultimately be traced back to relationships, broken or otherwise. Perhaps by our God who knows every hair on our head…it might, on the other hand, be pretty tough for a shrink to do so. Mike includes helpful insights from a Dominican priest who is in charge of formation, who believes that "the issue of gayness is moot." The point of formation, he said, was to "help the candidate discern whether he was, in fact, called to a celibate life." But this troubles me. Our Church teaches (as difficult as it is, and as insensitive as it sounds) that those with homosexual inclinations are--all of them--called to the celibate state. Warning: I am not a professional newsman. I am a rank amateur. I did not record or take notes when I spoke with my Dominican friend. His sentiment was that if you found celibacy to be a constant grind then the priesthood was not the place for you. The words “called to celibacy” were, in all likelihood, mine and not his. Back to Steve: Taking off from the discussion of maturity, Mike offers two ways he thinks homosexuals could live so that their "homosexuality [w]ould not be a big deal." They could a) be in denial, thinking that the vow of celibacy will make everything better or b) acknowledge and accept attraction to other men . . . Mike is surely right when he says the only way that a person's homosexuality doesn't become a big deal to him in the future is if he faces it before committing to the life of a celibate priest. But I don't think he's exhausted the possible solutions. Might I offer a third way (there may be many more)? Isn't it possible that some candidates could "work through" same-sex wounds in their past, and then no longer want to view themselves as "homosexuals" or "gay." This, I think, is the goal of reparative therapy. That’s not my impression of the goals of reparative therapy. Rather than expanding on that, I would rather use this as inspiration for… The Labels RantThe conservative Catholic ministry Courage puts out a lot of propaganda about how labeling people according to their sexual orientation and making sexual orientation a central defining characteristic of one’s being are bad things. Fair enough. There is an implication throughout their propaganda that the gay community is responsible for these things. It is dead wrong! To see this, consider the following questions:
You see, people with same sex attractions weren’t the ones that made those attractions a defining and central part of their being – the folks described above did that. Because they did, people who happen to have same sex attractions also have something else in common – the quality of their lives is under assault from the folks described above. In increasing numbers they are not sitting in their closets, divided and conquered and taking this (or the implied duty that they are responsible for concealing their attractions). They are recognizing each other as allies in defending themselves against this assault and part of that involves donning the label “gay” that helps them in finding each other. (It isn’t my favorite label – a bit too “Truman Capote” for my taste, but it does serve the purpose of identifying allies and helping allies identify me.) In summary, folks with same sex attractions aren’t choosing whether or not to be labeled but rather they are taking charge of which label they want to be known by. I understand from a pastoral standpoint why it may be wise to advise those who aspire to live a celibate life but find it a struggle to associate as much as possible with gay folk who share those aspirations. I can even see the need to recognize that most folks who take the label “gay” don’t share those aspirations. But the attempt on the part of Courage and like-minded organizations to encourage people to shun the label “gay” and discourage them from seeing gayness as an integral part of their personalities smacks of divide-and-conquer to me. It provides the false hope that if folks with same sex attractions do not label themselves then they will not be labeled at all. It also encourages them to ignore the fact that other folks with bad intent do see same sex attraction as defining and central and cuts them off from allies who can help them fight these people. Good Bye Good ManSeems as if Fr. Shawn O'Neal is taking a possibly permanent break from blogdom. We'll miss ya. Padre. And WelcomeTo Fr. Jim Tucker who has asked me to add his blog Dappled Things to the most complete list of Catholic blogs in blogdom. Consider it done. Thursday, May 23, 2002
!@#$%%@@!!!!I had nearly finished a wonderful rant on this post but I hit a wrong key on my laptop and it disappeared. Wednesday, May 22, 2002
Megadittoes? Uh, Maybe NotBut Emily Stimpson writes lots of thoughtful things that, more often than not, I disagree with but I still like to visit her blog every once in a while. She also pointed me to Maureen McHugh, who probably also doesn't see eye to eye with yours truly. To many of my readers, I'm sure that probably makes them certain hits! Check 'em both out anyway. BlogwatchPeter Nixon asks "Do l think like a Catholic?" My answer: more than your critics - and this terrific essay on community and authority points that out. He writes It will be up to God to judge whether I have formed my conscience well with respect to those teachings that I struggle with. I know that sometimes I roam fairly close to the boundaries of our community and, at times, even cross over. This realization causes me pain. I know the feeling. New Blogs: Welcome Ad Orientem and Pompous Ponderings to the most complete list of Catholic Blogs in blogdom... (ahem)... mine! Stanley Kurtz takes a nicer tone in today's response to Andrew Sullivan's response to his rant yesterday. He's still wrong though. Eve Tushnet Confuses Me with the FactsFirst of all, I must have lost the link to Eve Tushnet when I alphabetized the blog links. I'll have to fix that. Yesterday (in the post immediately below this one) I asked "is there any good reason why someone who had an illicit heterosexual relationship may be admissible to seminary but someone who was once "active in gay life" should not? Eve Tushnet wrote back with an insightful and somewhat humorous response... (Cardinal Mc Carricks remarks) ...were overbroad, but there's a fairly obvious rationale behind them, I think: A seminary is full of I hope that made sense. (Have not yet caffeinated myself.) Anyway, I think the Cdl's words could have been more accurate, but you're also ignoring a fairly obvious reason that gay seminarians face greater challenges than straight ones. There are a few places in this blog where I address and acknowledge these challenges but they do need to be dealt with, as you say, on a case by case basis. I still believe that the idea that "formerly active" homosexuals are at a higher risk to break vows of celibacy than, say, closet cases is based more on prejudice than empirical evidence.
Tuesday, May 21, 2002
Anyone want to confuse me with the facts?Cardinal Mc Carrick was interviewed in USA Today. The following sequence occurred:
A: You want someone who can live a chaste life; that is key for me. If somebody who would like to go into the seminary says, "All my life, I've tried to be chaste, I'm a heterosexual, and I have tried to be celibate, and I have proven that I can be," I think you say "Fine." If someone says to you, "All my life I've tried to be chaste, I have a homosexual orientation, but I've always tried to be chaste," I think you do that one case by case. Probably beginning in this next school year, the question of admission to seminaries will be discussed. It might be that the overwhelming weight of opinion will say that homosexuals should not be ever admitted to seminary. I'm not there yet. But if that's what they tell me to do, then that's what we'll do. Certainly, I'm there if we say anyone who has been active in a gay life should not be admitted. Q: But virginity has never been a requirement for the priesthood. Weren't several saints once married? A: That's right, not only married, but married non-virgins. Q: So are they considering establishing that as a criteria, both for people who are homosexual or heterosexual? A: This is a question I can't answer at this time, because I don't know that. However, I know that in some dioceses in the country, they are very, very strict. The bishop would not admit someone who had been involved in either a heterosexual or homosexual relationship. Now I think, that probably would not be — that certainly is not the universal standard. It would seem to me, that if someone has proven that they can live a chaste life over a long period of time, you give that person a chance. But you'd want to look at it case by case. Because you wouldn't want to fill a seminary with people who've had all kinds of sexual experiences in the past, and unless you were very, very sure that they could be chaste. BlogwatchIf you have a blog, you need to post in order for folks to view it. Some sort of bug in Blogger today. Martin Farkus writes: I don't know if I'm going to keep on listening to and reading Bill O'Reilly much longer. I've been listening to Bill's show for at least four years now, and reading his column for a good while. I don't know, is it me, or is he really strident? I don't think it's me. It ain't you. He's strident. I haven't watched him in a while but when I surf by him on the TV its like a car wreck...I know what I'm going to see is going to make me sick to my stomach but I just can't help but look. Ann Wilson wrote to thank me for including her in my Catholic links...and to inform me that she's Episcopalian. Of course, some of my readers would say that makes her more Catholic than I am. Anthony Marquis also had comments on the ugly Kurtz rant on the scandals and same sex marriage. See what I thought about it here. The most complete list of Catholic blogs won't be until Todd Reitmeyer, a seminarian with his own blog is added to the list later today. His site wasn't operating when I wrote this but Mark Shea says he weighed in on public hostility to the seal of the confessional. I'm looking forward to reading it. In the meantime it is worth noting the obvious: if priests can't keep the seal of the confessional than nobody with any sense will confess anything that can be used against them. With confidentiality, perpetrators can feel free to confess, be counseled to pay their debt to society and turn themselves in (does anybody have an example where this has actually happened? I'd love to share it here) hence the confessional with seal of confidentiality ultimately leads to justice for a steady stream of cases. Forcing priests to break the seal might--might provide evidence for a finite number of cases before folks wise up and stop confessing. Which serves society better - a steady stream of justice or a finite handful of cheap convictions at the expense of an integral part of the Catholic faith? Personally, I'm going with the former. Heart Mind and Strength has several posts that confirm what I've always suspected: EWTN is E-V-I-L and Lifeteen is not the official youth group of the Prince of Darkness. ThanksThanks to the Reverend-to-be Steven Mattson for letting me know that I had to make a brief post this morning to make my page visible. Formation ThoughtsSeminarian Steve Mattson, blogmeister of In Formation, wrote me last week. The complete text of the letter is on his blog. I was hoping for one more response (from a priest here in New Mexico who is now a formation director for his order) but in the meantime, I’ll provide my thoughts – and the thoughts of the one priest (also from an order) who I spoke with. Steve writes: Much has been made of late that these perpetrators never grew up; they never "dealt with" their sexuality. They are stuck at an adolescent, narcissistic stage. As I'm sure you know, some scholars make similar arguments when they look at the sociological and familial roots of same-sex attraction. In fact, that is part of the assumption of reparative therapy. I have spoken earlier about my reservations with reparative therapy. Its dismal record makes me doubt its core assumption – that homosexuality can be traced back to broken relationships. It also doesn’t square with my life – though I suppose that doesn’t disprove that at least some persons experience this. He also writes: I suspect you would agree that some men and women have gaps in their development and/or wounds that mark them and their maturation as persons. Sometimes that lack of maturation marks their sexual attractions in homosexual ways. At others, it leads to pedophilia. At others, (name your paraphilia here). NARTH definitely holds a minority opinion in the mental health professions on much of what is related to this topic. The causes of homosexuality are unknown and it is widely believed to be fixed by a very early age (though not necessarily at birth). The most often cited theory behind ephebophilia is that the development is stunted at puberty, well after sexual orientation is determined. While it seems plausible to me that folks whose ephebophilia manifests itself in attraction to teenage boys are homosexuals who have had such arrested development, I’ve never seen this definitively stated by someone who doesn’t have an axe to grind. Now for the part where I hoped for priestly input: Whether you investigate or reflect on that question, I am curious what program of formation you recommend for seminarians and priests who struggle with same-sex attraction…You seem to advocate, in part, "coming out of the closet." To what end is that helpful? Is that the end or the beginning of their development and maturation? One priest I spoke with, a Dominican, seemed to think the issue of gayness was moot. He felt the real issue was helping the candidate discern whether he was, in fact, called to a celibate life. It was important that celibacy not become a constant grind for the person. The word he arrived at over and over again was maturity. The candidate needs to be self-aware as to whether he is called to a celibate life. My lived experience suggests that a degree of “coming out” is part of attaining this self awareness and maturity but my Dominican friend balked a bit at that suggestion. At this point, a clarification on what I mean by “coming out” would be helpful. There are two extremes on the “outness” scale. On one extreme, one isn’t really out to ones self, assuming that attraction to members of ones own sex is something everyone sort of has and that opposite sex attraction will eventually come – basically a state of denial. Then there is the other extreme – Ann Heche announcing on national TV just exactly how skilled her former partner Ellen De Generes was (YUCK!). Most people are somewhere in between. I define “coming out” as arriving at the point where you don’t worry about who else finds out you are gay. With me, it occurred when I told my parents, my siblings and two of my best male friends but I suspect it varies. Again, since my Dominican friend saw celibacy as almost a separate entity in itself, apart from sexual orientation. He felt it was important that a candidate’s sexual orientation “not be a big deal” to him and that it not be something he wore on his sleeve. Personally, I’d love to see the contribution gay priests could make to this discussion if they were open about their sexuality but the Padre didn’t see it that way. There are two ways in which homosexuality could not be a big deal to a homosexual candidate for priesthood. One way is that the candidate is basically in denial, thinking a vow of celibacy will make everything better. The other is that the person has acknowledged and accepted attraction to other men but has realized he has a genuine calling to a celibate life (I see myself as about 90% of the way to that realization – desire for contact and intimacy but little desire to go “beyond” that). I think the only way that a person’s homosexuality doesn’t become a “big deal” to him in the future is if he faces it before committing to the life of a celibate priest. Another friend, a former member of Maryknoll, saw support as terribly important. I can’t see a seminarian finding that support if he is afraid of the consequences of disclosing his homosexuality even to a spiritual advisor – and that requires a degree of coming out. Another point from Steven’s letter: Yes I would agree that there is a developmental block and yes I would encourage counseling to promote healing and growth among seminarians who show signs of such developmental blocks. I would caution, however, against an assumption you appear to be making here, that all homosexual persons have a developmental block that puts them at risk to abuse children. That simply is not the case. Counseling should also aid candidates in determining whether or not they are truly called to a celibate life or whether it would become, as my Dominican friend put it “a grind”. How should they view their own and others' sexual attractions in light of Catholic teaching, and how should they counsel those who come to them seeking advice? In light of Church teaching, Priests should view any sexual attraction of their own as a temptation to break their vows that must be overcome. They should realize that what some folks see in themselves as homosexual longings are desires for intimacy and contact – not necessarily for genital expression and they should counsel those who seek their advice to be open to that possibility and not just assume they have to become sexually active to find fulfillment. If a priest finds a person actually desires genital expression, then he should realize the church teaches this is always immoral and hence that desire is only fulfilled in activity that is, in light of Church teaching, immoral. This is what the church means when it says the homosexual inclination is “disordered” – nothing less…but nothing more either! - and those seeking the advice of a priest must have this made clear, lest they fall prey to those who would insist that the Church teaches that this is a psychiatric disorder. The homosexual person should not be given the false hope of “change” therapies and should be warned against them. Priests should also be aware that the homosexual person will, at some point, become aware of the principle of primacy of the conscience and the priest should at some point make sure that the homosexual seeking his advice knows what this does and does not mean. Monday, May 20, 2002
Scandals and Same-Sex MarriageIn Saturday’s entry I acknowledged the existence of a few credible arguments against same sex marriage. Today’s rant by Stanley Kurtz in The National Review fishing for evidence against same sex marriage among the church scandals is not among them. He writes: After Vatican II, and in conformity with the broader cultural changes of the Sixties, the U.S. Catholic Church allowed homosexuals to enter the priesthood in increasing numbers. Its awfully easy for Mr. Kurtz to claim that gay priests are an innovation from the 1960s since the data that could disprove him simply doesn’t exist. The fact is, however, that two groups have historically been relegated to mandatory celibate living by the Church. The first group is homosexuals and the second group is Priests and religious. Common sense tells us that these groups have always had considerable overlap with an unusually high proportion of priests and religious being homosexual (and an unusual proportion of homosexual Catholics being current or former priests or religious). It has always been thus. As for the nonsense about seminaries beginning to let in homosexuals in the 60’s – tell that one to someone you can sell the Brooklyn Bridge to. Also of note Of course, it is true that powerful conservative bishops, who were in no way part of a homosexual subculture, played a critical role in covering up the abuse. They bear responsibility for their actions, yet their cover-up was itself motivated by their knowledge of the size and significance of the problem: To expose any given case was to risk a public unraveling of the larger problem of sexual abuse, disregard of celibacy, and the place of the gay subculture within the Church as a whole. Mr. Kurtz briefly acknowledges but minimizes the role of Bishops in the scandal – since it undermines his premise that abuses from a small number of presumably homosexual priests have been the source of the scandal. Baloney! One case of sexual abuse of a minor is an awful thing. Thousands of cases of child sexual abuse of minors by trusted priests is a tragedy – but it is a tragedy on no greater scale than occurs in society at large. It is the cover-up and pass-the-trash by the Bishops that turned this tragedy into a crisis along with the growing suspicion that cover-ups are standard operating procedure! It is the premise that a small number of abusers somehow brought down the Church that the author uses to imply that same-sex marriages, which will obviously be dwarfed in number by heterosexual marriages, will somehow be able to change the character of the institution of marriage itself and bring it into ruin. The premise is false and the conclusion is simply unfounded. He also cites statistics from a book by Jason Berry, which in turn cites statistics from "a study" of 50 gay priests Berry reports a study of 50 gay Catholic priests, only two of whom said that they were abstaining from sexual activity: "Sixty percent said they felt no guilt about breaking their vows. Ninety percent strongly rejected mandatory celibacy . . . and slightly less than half reported that they engaged in sex in public toilets or parks." Are the gay priests in this sample representative of all gay priests? It is doubtful, given the difficulty of obtaining a representative sample of this population. The author doesn’t specifically claim the figures from this study are equal to the percentages of violations of vows in the general population of gay priests but he sure hopes you’ll draw that inference. Don’t fall for it. What we’ve learned over the recent months is that the proportion of priests who are homosexually oriented is somewhere in the neighborhood of 30% to 50%, that the vast majority of them have never abused a child. Most priests are good men – the large number of homosexuals in the priesthood has not changed that. Light Posting TodayDid some remodeling on the blog so this was a light day for posting. I'm hoping I've assembled a very complete list of Catholic Blogs at the right.. I also widened the links margin and posted a brief list of archived articles to give new visitors a better idea of the flavor of this site. A sure sign of the apocalypseI agree with Mark Shea on something...of course it's his decision to occasionally link to my blog...and his comments on fortress Catholicism...its all located in his Mailbag. Sunday, May 19, 2002
And something to PO the pro-lifers as wellCheck out Relapsed Catholic's pithy commentary and wonder how many people are put off by the pro-life movement and its methods more than its goals. Pro LifersAmy Wellborn features a series of links in tribute to the diversity of the pro-life movement. Among them, a link to PLAGAL (Pro Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians). Let It Be: Did I Succumb to Urban Legend?A reader, Shawn points us to a Catholic Digest article that suggests other possiblities besides my assertion at Mother Mary was a reference to weed. Here is his letter with the URL for the article.
I was going to write a little note about what a beautiful Marian hymn http://www.catholicdigest.org/stories/200109006a.html I'd only add that in addition to the obvious reference to the And when the broken hearted people "Conversion of Russia", anyone? As far as "Mother Mary" being a reference to pot, as my English On a related note, whatever you think of "Turn, Turn, Turn" as a song, Regards, Shawn I wish I could say I've never played "Awesome God" at mass. I only wish. The Expanded Mail SegmentOne of the priests I am talking to about the ordination question is unable to get back to me until later. In the meantime, Justin Katz wrote back a bit concerned that in taking small pieces of his email to focus my comment on, I had somehow distorted his opinion. That wasn't the intent - it was more for focus. Anyway I'd like to use today's entry to post his emails in full. Like I said, they were full of interesting points - I just didn't want to attempt to address them all in one sitting. If that gave a skewed impression of Mr. Katz's views (and upon reviewing my posts, that does seem possible) , I do apologize. Mr. Hardy, I've been Catholic for a little over a year now. Before that -- goes I am among the larger percentage of people for whom homosexual concerns For one, your reaction to the following quote (cited by you on May 8) "since most of the secular media of communication are sympathetic to In criticizing the strategizing within the Church, you've no comment You dismiss, outright, paranoia about a "homosexual agenda." I won't I was very impressed that you even mentioned the possibility of And this, sir, is my point: I do not personally want to do a single Especially since your own central conflict is with a specific teaching With sincerity and hope, Justin Katz Mike, You can certainly quote from that email. It can only serve to advance For that reason, too, you can cite me as "a reader, Justin" or use my As for the below, I guess I've just seen too many examples of media I'll admit frankly that I'd be more apt to forgive a priest who With sincerity and hope, Justin Katz jkatz@timshelarts.com r. Hardy, It is a pleasure to receive rational responses from somebody from your To strike to the heart of the matter, I think we're approaching the The problem has been with the way in which the hierarchy has handled My central concern is how we address what is currently happening, and My point is that I just don't see that kind of general anger as I guess my only point on this area involves its position within the With sincerity and hope, Justin Katz P.S. -- Thank you for the great plug. I had merely envisioned a link Mr. Hardy, You appear to be using my email as a springboard to write about Firstly, I did give you a specific example of the type of "tearing Secondly, having been very impressed with your openness to others' To read your blog entry, one would think that I had merely regurgitated With sincerity and hope, Justin Katz
Saturday, May 18, 2002
Watching What We Tear DownJustin Katz writes: …in advancing your own laudable cause of feeling no stigma attached to your love (again, emphasizing love... not sex) you aren't being sufficiently cautious about what you tear down. Good Lord, Justin did you hit on a sore subject! ;) Now I can’t answer for all of the millions of gay people out there – or even for the entire gay rights movement but I am constantly trying to read conservative literature and dialog with conservatives to find out what, if anything, risks being torn down as a result of gay activism. For example, I’ve found some pretty compelling arguments out there (follow the link to “Right Wingers” then select Maggie Gallagher from the list at Townhall) that same-sex marriage risks cementing recent changes already made to the institution of marriage that may, in fact, be doing harm to the institution. Occasionally I see some compelling arguments that constitutionally guaranteed rights such as free association and free speech may be compromised laws forbidding employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Usually, I see nothing being torn down, no matter how frequently I turn to the writing of my adversaries to say where. I see vague references to the idea that gay friendly policy is somehow “anti family” but I’ve never seen a remotely credible justification for such an assertion. Even within the Church there are some who see anything other than silent, unquestioning submission to everything the Church teaches – and even to its political aims – as a form of disloyalty or treason…a sort of “tearing down” of the Church. I would assert that during this time of weakness in the Church we’ve seen various attempts to do “tearing down” by folks with agendas – the married priesthood crowd, the women’s ordination crowd, the “democratic Church” crowd, the “fidelity fidelity fidelity” crowd and, yes, the “stop the homosexual domination of the priesthood” crowd. I would defy anyone to say the ideas I’ve proposed on the crisis tear down anything other than the culture of secrecy that brought us into this mess in the first place. Beyond that, I’m too busy defending my place in the community from those who would use me as a scapegoat for the current troubles (which is why this is a bit of a touchy subject). But you know I love to get email so keep writing. Friday, May 17, 2002
This WeekendJustin Katz wrote several days ago with this comment: ...in advancing your own laudable cause of feeling no stigma attached to your love (again, emphasizing love... not sex) you aren't being sufficiently cautious about what you tear down. My response to this is coming this weekend. Also, A reader, Steven writes I am curious what program of formation you recommend for seminarians and priests who struggle with same-sex attraction. How should they view their own and others' sexual attractions in light of Catholic teaching, and how should they counsel those who come to them seeking advice? I'm visiting a couple of priest friends in the next couple of days and I'll be writing to let you know what they think. Come back! Why do I have a problem with "change therapies to change folks from homosexual to heterosexual?This will be brief. Anyone who wants to know more about change therapies can see the case for them presented by NARTH and the case against them presented in brief by the APA and PFLAG. In short, the case for various change therapies is that "change" is "possible" for "some" homosexuals who are "highly motivated" to change. Most of the change reported in these studies is not change in orientation but rather changes in the frequency of sexual thoughts and sexual acts. Some of these studies even suggest that some of their clients achieved a certain level of heterosexual "functioning". I've met plenty of formerly married gay men who can tell you that heterosexual "functioning" is quite possible even for a gay person - that doesn't make them heterosexual. The claimed success rates are poor. The claimed successes are often limited to "highly motivated" clients who I suspect are also highly motivated to get back into the closet for one reason or another. There is insufficient follow up in these studies to suggest that the changes are permanent and plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that the changes may not be permanent. Because of this, I tend to agree with the conclusions of the oft-maligned APA which suggests that change therapies are:
I felt that in trying to live a good life, I needed to acknowledge that homosexual orientation was going to be a permanent part of my life rather than deluding myself with the fantasy that it was ever going to change.
What do I think of "Change" Therapies?Mark Butterworth was one of two writers who asked what I thought about the idea of trying to change people from gay to straight. Here was my response: I have thoughtfully read discussions and studies of change therapies and basically think they are a crock. Obviously, I don't think living a celibate life is a stretch for some people. I've read about some people who happen to be gay who are perhaps obsessed with sex and have been able to reduce the control sex has over their lives with therapy. Recently, I've heard several people say that ephebophiles, people who are inclined to having sex with adolescents, can be steered toward more age-appropriate partners with therapy. I have even read about some people who appear to find happiness of a sort in heterosexual marriage. On the other hand, the idea of changing homosexually oriented people to heterosexuals is BS and I personally wouldn't trust my mental health to a psychiatrist or psychologist who thought otherwise. What makes me think this? I'll try to give you an answer later in the day. Just where was I coming from?You can find out by reading my coming out letter to my parents. I handed this to them on the day after Christmas in 1995. I was 33 years old at the time. I found it quite important to try to retrace the journey on which I came to grips with my sexuality. It is pretty melodramatic - but then again it was pretty scary handing them that letter. Just Where Am I Coming From?A reader Mark Butterworth writes: I was reading your blog and trying to discover what kind of Catholic you are regarding homosexuality and the Church. I can't find out if you're an Andy Sullivan type fellow or Eve Tushnet or whatever. My background: I am out, gay and proud. [personal details from my emailed response are omitted here]. I have my doubts about Church teaching on homosexuality but the only kind of theological argument I tend to have is the rather unsophisticated "Gosh I have a hard time believing Jesus gets as bent out of shape about it as some of his followers do". My relative inexperience is a product of lack of opportunity and being picky - not of strenuous moral objection to homogenital activity. There is a lot of lip service paid to the distinction between homogenital activity and homosexual orientation but it really seems as if, in reality, there are a whole lot of folks who have problems with the homosexual orientation and that the alleged Part of what is driving my blog is the sense that there is a teachable moment out there on this because the situation in the Church has featured a lot of people spouting off about how gay priests shouldn't be ordained (even if they take a vow of celibacy) and there has also been a lot of evidence of good holy gay priests who live according to the vow of celibacy they took. All of this has highlighted the distinction the Church is supposed to be making between homosexuality and homogenital activity. So I stipulate to the Church teaching (that is, I acknowledge my misgivings about it but make no attempt whatsoever to argue that it is wrong) and focus on what the implications of that are as opposed to what they should be. I minimize the use of the word "gay" which some in my intended audience see as misleading (I can't see why) and use the word homosexual (which I In short, I see my role here as sort of an ambassador for the gay community and the Church to each other.
We're all adults here A reader with his own blog Mark Butterworth. writes: You can find me at Sunny Days in Heaven. I'm not quite an Enemy of the Church? but I've been getting the cold shoulder from fellow RCC bloggers with my less than Orthodox arguments about Truth (God), Falsehood, and Faith. It wasn't my cup of tea but doggone it we're all adults here and we'll just let you figure out for yourself if what Mark has to say is of interest. Lady Marayam Abacha...is still looking for someone to handle her $20 million from her late husband the grand poohbah of Nigeria. If you don't get enough email spam to know what I'm talking about here then consider yourself lucky. Star WarsI'm not a huge Star Wars fan but the friend I am staying with in Albuquerque is. Yesterday was Opening Day so guess where we were - Star Wars Episode II. Good flick. Thumbs up and two snaps. Wednesday, May 15, 2002
Implicating Homosexuality?Greetings from Albuquerque. Justin Katz has asked many good questions in a couple of emails and tonight I have time to respond to one. The problem is most people have been given the impression that we're talking small children in the majority of cases, and I think a large part of that is not wanting to implicate homosexuality. I do not make a point of reading Rod Dreher. My primary sources of news are ABC News, CNN and Fox News. Secondary sources of news include several opinion columnists and listservs. I can recall instances on each of those sources where the fact that most of the victims were teenage boys was mentioned. I can also recall instances on each of these sources where a person interviewed suggested that the abusers were homosexually oriented and complaining about of some sort of cover-up of the "link" between homosexuality and sexual abuse of adolescents. Now I can think of two ways in which one could implicate homosexuality here and I can suggest reasons why responsible media would want to avoid both practices. The first way of "implicating homosexuality" is blaming homosexuality for past incidents, holding the entire homosexual population responsible for them. The second way is suggesting that homosexuality is a risk factor for molestation. The first is a bit easier to deal with than the second (in fact, I peg you as someone who is too bright to believe the first implication). I can offer myself as the first example. I have never had sex with anyone under the age of 18 and never will. Is it fair for me to take blame for misconduct of some priests - no. As another example, consider that most credible estimates put the percentage of homosexually oriented Roman Catholic priests at somewhere between 30 and 50%. Consider the fact that there are 50,000 Catholic priests on "active duty" and tens of thousands more laicized. That means there are somewhere between 15,000-25,000 homosexually oriented priests on active duty and probably another 15,000-25,000 in retirement or the laity. Now we don't know exactly how many priests have been abusing but the number publicly known is down around 100. Even assuming they are all gay, that leaves the overwhelming majority of gay priests, all of whom enjoyed tremendous trust and access to children, who did not abuse. It seems reasonable to say that blaming all gay priests for past instances of abuse is unfair. The second way of implicating homosexuality - suggesting it is a risk factor - is tougher to deal with but I ask you to consider a few things. Let me dispose of the point I suspect you'll find the least convincing first. Predominantly conservative, predominantly anti-gay pundits have made a meal out of the fact that since most of the victims are teenage boys, these are technically not cases of pedophilia. There is a name for folks predisposed to sex with adolescents - it is called ephebophilia. The fact that many on the right with extensive records of anti-gay rhetoric prefer to use the broader term homosexuality to the more precise term is, in my opinion, telling. What is never stated definitively is whether all folks who have sex with teenage boys are homosexual - only that they are not technically "pedophiles". The Grisez document actually referred to the fact that some scientists suggested otherwise but then dismissed the possibility that the molesters were "true ephebophiles" because it simply wasn't convenient. I mention all of this to say I'm personally not convinced that it is proper to assume that every priest who has sex with a teenage boy is homosexual but since I assume many folks out there probably are I will stipulate to that assumption. Next we need to talk about an important quality of risk factors - a risk factor for an event must be identifiable before the event takes place. If it is not identifiable before the event takes place, it is worthless as a predictor of the probability of that event. The only way in which homosexuality is identifiable is if a person is caught "red handed" having gay sex or if a person discloses his sexual orientation verbally. Therefore homosexuality in and of itself cannot be a risk factor - only identified homosexuality can. Now lets suppose we instill a policy at seminaries that anyone having sex is out of the program. The person whose homosexuality is identified by being caught having sex during his time at seminary has already been identified by the risk factor of illicit sexual activity. Now the only risk factor left is disclosed homosexuality. The question then is whether sexually inactive men who disclose homosexuality a greater risk to offend in the future than sexually inactive men who have not disclosed homosexuality either because they are not homosexual or because they are in the closet. The answer to this question is not as clear-cut as folks on the right would have you believe. I suspect, in fact, that sexually inactive gay men with the requisite self awareness and emotional maturity to come out of the closet are no more likely to offend than sexually inactive men with undisclosed or known heterosexual orientation. I suspect the Church has access to seminary records that could back that suspicion up. I am hoping to create a simulation that illustrates the points above. I wish they were as easy to understand as off the cuff remarks about these things being "homosexual type incidents". They are not. They are simply the truth. Tuesday, May 14, 2002
Welcome to my BlogThe readership appears to be increasing. If you're a new reader, welcome aboard. Below you'll find columns on homosexuality and the church, the scandals, annulments, ordination and formation or priests written from a perspective that you just won't find anywhere else. Scroll down, give it a read (check the archive too) and come back! The columns are in reverse chronological order so you may find it helpful to start at the end and work your way back. Enjoy. Looking for the response to Mark Shea? Scroll down for the first part, under the headline "Blog Wars Episode II". Amy Wellborn has posted a list of answers to her question about lame secular music in liturgy. You'll laugh or you'll cry...or in my case, both! Anthony Marquis has great thoughts on gay ordination issues...inspired by articles in Time, Newsweek and Christianity Today Online. He links to all of the articles and gives great commentary. I'll have to weigh in on it from the road. Justin Katz has written a couple of terrific emails which will be the subject or a post or two in the coming days. He's founded a company called Timshel Arts whose motto is "Honesty, Integrity, Artistry". The Timshel Arts website features a column, poetry, short story and "Songs You Should Know" along with interesting links. Cool site. Today's post will be brief as I hit the road for Albuquerque. I'll be posting from the road so stay with me. Monday, May 13, 2002
A PlugCheck out Mars Hill Review. Sounds like something potentially of interest to readers here. Kim Hutchins, the editor and publisher, describes it like this... a journal of provocative thought and transcendent stories. Founded in 1993, we're in the Literary and Poetry section of 300+ general trade bookstores nationwide and in Canada (Barnes and Noble, B. Dalton, Bookstops) as well as many independent stores and newsstands. And she's another Washingtonian, living on Bainbridge to boot. Mystified by all the Grisez References?Then check out the analysis of this submission of recommendations to the Bishops at Nota Bene. Very well written...and it addresses the submission in a more balanced manner than I, the besieged gay author of this site did. Blog Wars Episode IIFirst the nit-picky "you don't know who you're messing with" points of fact. On Mark Shea's blog he writes Mike Hardy, not knowing me from Adam, and seeing only what I've written on this blog naturally assumes certain things (eg. I am 'trying to tar the gay community" and I hope to "bully gays back into the closet", etc.) I don't know him from Adam and I did vaguely suggest that someone named Mark was trying to tar the gay community. I'll give a brief rationale for that later. He is correct in assuming that referred to him. On the other hand, I never said he was trying to bully gays into the closet. Check the blog again. He also writes And that's the rub: for folks like Mike aren't content with the fact that I don't think homosexual temptation a sin. They want very much for me to not regard it as temptation. I just went through my entire blog after reading this statement. I could not find one place where I suggest that anyone needs to avoid seeing the homosexual orientation as a temptation. Can anyone else find it? In fact once, I said the following: "…when the Church already have the concept of original sin to explain dissonance between Church teaching and people's desires, why do they find it necessary to pound the "objective moral disorder" label into the heads of the gay faithful? This was in response to a post describing original sin as "the inclination to sinfulness as the result of Adam's fall." I have deliberately avoided any attempt to argue that gay sex is ever moral (and hence could never have argued that the inclination to have gay sex is not a temptation) or even that the homosexual orientation is not disordered. A blog is not suitable for that and I am not qualified to make the argument even if it were. It is fair to assume that I personally question both points but am quite "content" if some don't. My goal here has been to stipulate to the points of Church doctrine on gay sex and the homosexual inclination and to critically examine the negative implications that some say these points must have on the lives of gay people. A few comments on gay seminarians, gay priests and why some references to homosexuality on Mr. Shea's blog appear to be tarring gay folk. First let's be clear that now is not the time to mess with the all male all celibate priesthood. I'd love to see both issues addressed someday but a time of crisis in Church leadership is not the time for such things. Seminaries should demand the willingness and ability to live a celibate life as conditions of admission. Seminaries should form candidates in a manner that promotes and supports emotionally healthy celibate living. It is reasonable to assume that homosexual men face challenges in seminary life that their heterosexual counterparts do not and it is fair to assess homosexual candidates on their ability to meet those challenges. Priests who present themselves as living a vow of celibacy as virtually all Latin rite priests do, should actually live according to that vow. On ordination of gay men: the question is not whether gay men have a "right" to holy orders or whether they should be banned from entrance to seminary or ordination as priests since such a ban would be impossible to enforce anyway. The real issue is to what extent should gay seminarians and gay priests be forced to conceal their homosexual inclination. I say that allowing the gay priest to disclose his homosexual inclination is key to assisting the seminarian and his directors in identifying the real challenges the seminarian faces and forming him in a manner that promotes emotionally healthy celibate living. Surely this kind of openness can be achieved without creating, as Mr. Shea put it, "a culture of homosexuality which asks, like Andrew Sullivan, why the Church should have anything to say about eros at all." I think all of this can be said without the lengthy anti-gay rants of Dr. Grisez or the gratuitous references to "boys, boys, boys and boys" made frequently by Mr. Shea and because these points can be made without this kind of rhetoric, many gay folk including myself, question the motives of those who do use it. My apologies to Mr. Shea in the event I mistook his motives and my thanks for the following reference to C.S. Lewis: Lewis always insisted (and I believe as well) that there is nothing more tiresome than people offering free advice to others about temptations and struggles which they do not themselves share. For this reason, Lewis never wrote about gambling. He said he'd never felt the temptation and (no doubt) lacked some positive quality in his character which (when corrupted) constituted the vice of gambling. Similarly, he never went around handing out free advice to homosexuals. He also added something to the effect that we might well ask "Soooo, when you write about all those other sins you discuss in The Screwtape Letters and elsewhere, that means you've struggled with them all?" Bingo. Coming in the next episode: homosexuality and dissent as risk factors for child sexual abuse. Preview of Coming AttractionsI said earlier today that Mark Shea gives me lots of material to write about. Then he makes this thoughtful and slightly lengthy post, which (of course) i'll still manage to find fault with in an equally lengthy missive. Check in with Mark's blog - then check back! I also got a terrific email (doesn't mean I agree with it completely - in fact I appear to have some sort of masochistic hunger for readings I don't agree with- it's just thoughtful and honest and addresses some great issues that I haven't gotten around to discussing yet)...anyway, where was I?...Oh yes, terrific email from a reader, Justin regarding a couple of points in the Grizez rants and the broader issues regarding different levels and types of tolerance and acceptance and how one should go about making the case to the community for them. I'm hoping to get in an equally thoughtful response today or tomorrow. My Favorite Liturgical Music MemoriesI'm pretty liberal but when it comes to liturgical music, I have a bit of a fuddy-duddy streak in me. So when Amy Wellborn asked: What lame, inappropriate pieces of secular music have you endured at Mass? I just had to chime in with...
Mark Shea WritesMike Hardy appears not to like this blog very much But in the interest of being sporting, I'll give you a link to his site anyway. Mike, cheers! Actually, I love Catholic and Enjoying It!...or maybe I just love to hate it. I obviously read it enough. So much material to write about! Thanks from another Seattle boy (St. Monica parish on M.I. while growing up...also a JFK High School Alum) for the plug. Catholic Light (not Catholic Lite)Thanks to Steve Schultz who gives a link, a few kind words and a very useful piece of criticism on his blog Catholic Light. He also brings an interesting angle to the discussion as well with the following: Is it a sin to be straight or gay? No more than it is a sin to be human. We're born with an inclination to sinfulness as a result of Adam's fall. How could I have overlooked the concept of original sin, which Steve so accessibly defines above in the Germain Grisez/Objective Dirsorder Rant ? I mean, when the Church already have the concept of original sin to explain dissonance between Church teaching and people's desires, why do they find it necessary to pound the "objective moral disorder" label into the heads of the gay faithful? About Last Night...A large piece of me wants to delete the last three posts from yesterday, as I feel they somehow lower the tone I wish to set in this blog. They do, however, stand as a not-so-shining example of what is wrong with the discourse on homosexuality so I'll keep them and use them to make a few points. I begin with an old saw: opinions are like a certain body part...everybody has one...and everybody else's stinks. While opinions are easy enough to have in abundance, priorities are by their nature limited. I would venture a guess that issues related to homosexuality are priorities for about 15% of Americans -tops. The 3-5% who are gay (I'm tend not to buy the idea that 10% of folks are gay) see these issues as directly affecting the quality of their lives. Many of our relatives and friends feel strongly as well. Another small group appears to live in constant worry about something they call the "gay agenda". I've never understood why they have such strong feelings, though I've tried. For the vast majority of Americans, however, these issues are not a priority. If one side of the argument were to suddenly get everything they wanted, most Americans wouldn't know about it unless they were told - the issues involved simply have that little impact on their lives. So we in both camps in the 10% to 15% who care about this issue often have a message for the rest of you. The other side isn't like you. The other side is scary. I'll try to give the impression the other side is like Gene, the letter writer from last night...a bit neurotic and Gene will tell you we're all out to recruit your 9-year-old boy into our "lifestyle". Each side will tell you that you should be terrified about what happens if the other side wins. That explains why I posted Gene's rather lowbrow emails and why Gene will, no doubt, continue his quest to let the world "know" that Dignity/USA is "scum". As for me, I hope to return to what the subtitle of this blog says I want to do: provide the perspective of one gay man and pray that the Holy Spirit can use it to transform hearts, minds and ultimately, our Church. Sunday, May 12, 2002
The Last WordOK, so there are way too many Genes ( and Marks and Germains and...) out there who wish to use "The Situation" to tar the gay community. Many of these same people tried to use AIDS epidemic to whip up a little antigay sentiment too. I am praying...and betting...that they'll run into the same obstacle now that they ran into then. The public will realize (as they did earlier in the AIDS epidemic) that there always have been and always will be gay folk and there always have been and always will be folks having gay sex. They will realize that the real issue society faces is whether it is a good idea to basically terrorize gay folk into the closet. The public realized back then that bullying gays into the closet did more harm than good. They'll know it's still a lousy idea today. Stop The PressesImagine my surprise that Gene wasn't completely satisfied with my response (Ouch! My tongue just about ripped right through my cheek as I was writing that one!). He said he was polite in his inquiry and the person on the other end of the line didn't know of a policy. I pulled the reference from a recent press release so it was likely not on the site six months ago when this guy inquired. He also answered my question of "does that warrant the name 'scum'?" Absolutely! "Pedsophile scum"...or "pederastic scum"....or "gay pedophile scum"....or "gay pederast scum"....or just plain old "gay scum".....if they use such rhetorical trickery to attempt to hide their true nature and threat. Obviously I have a different perception of Dignity's true nature. I've been to somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 Dignity meetings in Albuquerque, San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Denver, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago and Seattle and have met literally hundreds of Dignity members along the way. I have a considerably more accurate idea of the nature of the organization than this guy does and none of the names in the above little rant describe it. Our doors are open and our schedule of meetings near you is publicly available on the web (just follow the link at the left) so you can assess the "true nature and threat" of the organization for yourself. You don't even have to take my word for it...or Gene's either for that matter. The Mail Segment: Dignity and Child AbuseI got an email from someone named Gene. It turns out it was not necessarily a reader of this blog but someone who "spammed" every email address they could find with some sort of link to Dignity. He writes: I am stunned that you would wish to become any part of....or have anything to do with....DignityUSA. I specifically wrote to DignityUSA approximately six months ago to inquire on their official position regarding Gay Catholics havins ex [sic] with....or attempting to have sex with.....underage minors. In other words....commiting child-molestation, statutory rape, and other sexual abuses against children, adolescents and minor teens. And what do you think they answered? If you wish to know, email me back and ask me. DignityUSA is scum.......plain and simple. Gene What did they say? Gee, Gene, it probably depends on how you asked it. My guess is if you called them "scum" then they probably weren't very helpful. As for the policy, they put it into writing in 1985. From their web site. Further, we commend to our members Dignity/USA resolution H-12-0885, affirmed in 1985, that states, in part, '[We], the members of Dignity, believe it is imperative to maintain an age of consent in order to exercise one's sexuality in an ethically responsible manner; further, we believe that children, during their formative years, should be free from undue sexual influence of a heterosexual or homosexual nature.' Last month, at a Dignity meeting in San Antonio, several of us commented that this sounded like it was written by a committee, which of course it was...but does that warrant the name "scum"? - Hardly! At Least Two Congregations Appreciate Honesty and OpennessPentecost is a week away and signs of the Holy Spirit are everywhere...doves...tongues of fire...and the scowling disapproval of Amy Welborn. Sometimes the disapproval is warranted (just as sometimes the dove is just a sign of hunting season or tongues or fire are just a sign to call 911). But sometimes...well...there is the story of "a married priest and his defiant flock". Seems as if folks in this one village in Mexico would rather have an openly married priest than one who has a clandestine affair with a "housekeeper" or "cousin". Then, under the sarcastic headline of "Oh yeah, leave it to the laity, and we'll fix it:" comes disapproval of the following story" Congregation cheers approval as admitted child predator says he's staying on as their pastor". Now Ms. Wellborn appears to make a compelling point about the article But whatever the case, the cheering and clapping is totally inappropriate. Imagine if that boy's mother or a sibling was present that day, listening to a congregation whoop it up over the presence of their son or brother's molestor. In a sense, of course, they were, because they are a part of the Body of Christ. They may not have heard the cheers, but the echoes resound nonetheless, shaping and perverting the very air we breathe in between our "Amen's". But we don't have to imagine what victims of such abuse want. They actually tell us! They want the priests and the Church to admit what happened and apologize. Isn't this what Fr. Allen (the priest in this story) did? The father of the Prodigal Son didn't kill the fatted calf to celebrate the fact that he squandered his inheritance on whores. The celebration was for his return home. The cheers in this Indiana church were not for the (20 years old but still) despicable act of taking advantage of a bereaved 16-year-old boy. They were for a beloved priest who admitted his wrongdoing and sought forgiveness. Pray that those resounding echoes from Mexico and Indiana calling for honesty and openness will hit the ears of the tens of thousands of gay priests in America and let them know it's time to come out. Saturday, May 11, 2002
Gay Catholics Try to Face Down the Church's DemonsThe link above is to an article in the village voice by Patrick Giles. Wow! The voice ad that accompanies the link is annoying!!! Anthony Marquis found it and made some interesting comments about it on his blog. I'd love to think I could add something to the article and Anthony's commentary but I can't. Thanks I'd like to thank Martin Farkus for including me in his links. The Lord told us we had to love everybody......but he didn't say we had to like anybody! I don't know the source of that piece of wisdom but I didn't think of it on my own. I heard it from the chaplain of our Newman Center who in turn heard it from another priest. I'm thinking of that quote because today my writing energies are going to be devoted to writing a "palanka" letter to someone I genuinely do love but am having a tremendous amount of trouble liking of late. (A "palanka" letter is a message that is used on retreats. The directors of the retreat ask family members to write a sort of "thinking of you and praying for you" message to folks making the retreat. The letters are supposed to be a surprise but the practice has become so common that I doubt its much of a surprise anymore). More details are probably not appropriate for the web but keep me and her (the recipient of the letter) in your prayers today. Canadian Judge Allows Same Sex Couple To Attend Catholic High School PromMr. Justice McKinnon said he found nothing in Catholic dogma that said same-sex dancing, such as Mr. Hall planned to do at his prom, is sexual or sinful. Instead, he said, the Church preaches against discrimination. I can see legitimate gripes that the Justice did not have the authority to interpret Catholic dogma but this statement is "dead on" and the high school's claim that the prom is exclusively a spouse-hunting ritual is bogus. No more writing until I finish my palanka letter. Take it, Jeremiah..."You duped me, O LORD, and I let myself be duped; you were too strong for me, and you triumphed. All the day I am an object of laughter; everyone mocks me. Jer 20: 7-9 LeftoversBefore my access to the blog was interrupted last night I wanted to thank Fr. Shawn O'Neal for his nice comment on his blog. Also, from the I couldn't have said it better myself department Thomas Joseph at The Christian Conscience took on Jesuit Moral Theology 101 from Mark Shea's blog. Friday, May 10, 2002
Two More Blogs and My $.02 on Andrew Sullivan's Annulment CommentsActually only of these is new, since I've already mentioned Sursum Corda. I mention it again to say Thanks to Peter Nixon (Sursum Corda author) for the nice comment about this site on his site. There's a reason why John Leo mentioned it in his column. There's a reason why its the first blog you'll see in the margins of Enemy of the Church? Sursum Corda is a wonderful and thoughtful read. Todays entries are no exception. I'm looking forward to seeing more entries on Care and Feeding of a Catholic Church Choir. I'm an amateur liturgist...no choir though...just me and my keyboard which I preprogram with MIDI. I wondered if it was tacky to have the player piano thing going...sort of like karaoke mass...but people seem to prefer it to the guitar (there's no way I could play the keyboard live and sing at the same time) and I feel better about singing when I don't have the guitar pressing against my expansive gut. Andrew Sullivan commented on annulments today.. I'd have to concur with the reader at Amy Welborn's site in saying that annulments are far more common than Mr. Sullivan implies. I believe he wrote the passage to make a contrast between the Church's treatment of couples who appear to have at one time been married and its treatment of gays and lesbians. The fact that anulments are quite common appears to make the contrast more stark. A disclaimer here - and I write it as much to remind myself as to warn you - I am no sacramental theologian. I merely wish to comment on how this looks to a gay guy. Scripture gave pretty clear sounding instructions that divorce was simply not allowed. Dare I suggest they sound much clearer to me than, oh, say, the passages folks cite to condemn homogenital activity. But then the church was faced with real people trying to find happiness while living moral lives. I picture a parish priest faced with a woman in her early 20's with several children to raise whose husband left her for another woman...faced with the duty of looking that woman in the eye and saying "this is your life...you'll have to raise the kids alone without the help and companionship of a husband and you will be alone for the rest of your life"...Then I picture the Church faced with thousands of stories like this...and, moved to compassion, the Church dug deeper...thought, prayed and studied harder...and arrived at a compassionate solution for the people involved...the realization that perhaps these apparently failed marriages weren't real marriages in the first place. Then I wonder if they've done the same thing for the gay and lesbian faithful. Did they dig deeper, pray harder, study harder, comb over the Scripture and Tradition in search of a way that it be possible for gays and lesbians to not be alone as they did for the couples with apparently failed marriages? I honestly doubt it. Again, I'm not trying to pass this off as any sort of theological argument but I suspect it is how most gay folk feel. One more thing about the last letter writerHe writes again saying Peace, His Blog is The Christian Conscience Blog and it's a good read. There's the plug! Recommended ReadingCharles Krauthammer on Cloning Vocations - an Open Question In the letters section of this morning's Dallas Morning News, Tom Pauken writes something that I've heard before. It is a fact that only a few men are going into the priesthood in this diocese unlike other dioceses where vocations are flourishing. To name a few examples, I would cite the following dioceses where there are plenty of vocations: Denver, Colo.; Lincoln, Neb.; Arlington, Va.; Peoria, Ill.; Atlanta, Ga.; and Newark, N.J. The oft-stated reason: these are conservative seminaries in conservative dioceses. Now for the question - are they generating these vocations locally or are the vocations migrating to these seminaries from elsewhere. I suspect the latter. If that it the case, then simply crushing dissent and moving the rest of America's seminaries to the right will only spread existing vocations around rather than actually generating new ones. Does anyone out there want to confuse me with the facts? (Cue Music) We just got a letter! We just got a letter! We just got a letter! Wonder who it's from...It's from a reader, Thomas, who offers definitive proof that someone actually reads this blog! He also mentions a sobering article on MSNBC that serves as a reminder that common sense ain't common. He writes On your blog you stated: Note the date on this study. 1978! Before the AIDS epidemic. Have patterns of behavior among homosexuals changed since then? Almost Certainly! My reply: Well, sorta, but not quite. The patterns "may" have changed, but they're reverting back to "what once was". http://msnbc.com/news/749950.asp " But studies conducted in the past few years have shown gay and bisexual men, possibly lulled into complacency by medical breakthroughs that have allowed AIDS patients to live longer, are having more unprotected sex..." Now, I'd like nothing more than to scold Thomas about how this doesn't quite prove gays are reverting back to what once was but seeing as I never did look for a study that proved these patterns changed in the first place (preferring the easy "they probably have"), I'll be too busy removing the plank in my own eye to be bothered with the sliver in his. I still question the motives of Dr. Grisez in including a paragraph on the ability of folks to find lasting sexual partnerships in a section that was supposed to deal with factors conducive to sex offenses for priests on a vow of celibacy. The issue isn't how successful they'll be in a romantic relationship but whether they'll be seeking such a relationship out in the first place. And I stand by the notion that if Dr. Grisez statistics are accurate then I am a big-time outlier (on the low end...not on the high end...definitely not on the high end!). Thursday, May 09, 2002
Thanks
(At Least) One More Grisez RantThe following is from the Grisez document I discussed at length yesterday. It was located in a part of the document called "Dealing with factors conducive to clerical sexual offenses." Does anyone see what this has to do with sexual offences of clergy who take a vow of celibacy? If they aren't supposed to be having sex at all then is there any reason, other than whipping up a little anti-gay hate among the Bishops, for including the following paragraph? Some sexually active unmarried heterosexuals develop more or less satisfying nonmarital sexual relationships. But few homosexuals do. Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), 81-93, 308-9,(Mike says: Note the date on this study. 1978! Before the AIDS epidemic. Have patterns of behavior among homosexuals changed since then? Almost Certainly!) studied 574 white male homosexuals, 100% of whom had already had at least three sexual partners, 97% at least ten, 75% at least one hundred, and 28% at least one thousand. David P. McWhirter and Andrew W. Mattison (both homosexual), The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1984), 252-59, studied 156 male homosexual couples, most of whom once expected to have a sexually exclusive relationship, and found that only seven of these couples-none of whom had been together five years-claimed to have succeeded. Many apologists for the moral acceptability of homosexual behavior blame such promiscuity and failure to maintain stable relationships on society's mistreatment of, and negative attitude toward, people who are homosexual; however, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen (again, both homosexual), After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s (New York: Doubleday, 1989), 302-7, 318-32, honestly and clearly explain the psychological causes within homosexuals that account for those phenomena. (Mike Says: note that the professor doesn't bother to say what Kirk and Madsen's explanation actually is!) All of this is supposed to point out "the dark side" of homosexuality that "the liberal media doesn't want you to hear". One huge problem. This ain't the dark side of my life. It aint the bright side of my life. Hell it bears no resemblance at all to my life! My friends, co-workers, neighbors and family know this. As long as Professor Grisez and like minded ilk can't force me into the closet, they always will know this! Wednesday, May 08, 2002
Germain Grisez' Submission to the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse - USCCI should have known it would be bad when I read a glorious review of it on Mark Shea's site. If I didn't know at that point, then surely the following asinine quote from Germain Grisez' Submission to the Ad Hoc Committee on Sexual Abuse - USCC should have given me a clue: Dissent from Catholic moral teaching also is conducive to clerical sexual offenses. Priests who accept dissenting opinions and apply them in pastoral practice no longer have any compelling reason to resist each and every sexual temptation they experience, and so are likely to begin to practice what they counsel others to do. No compelling reason? None whatsoever? How about a conscience for cryin' out loud! Of course, he addresses homosexuality in several places, including this damning little tidbit: In my judgment, therefore, the bishops of the United States ought to recognize and state publicly that a large and important part of the clerical sexual offenses to be dealt with are seductions by homosexual clerics of adolescent boys and young men. Being candid about this matter promises three benefits. First, facing this and other relevant facts will help bishops deliberate soundly about how to deal with clerical sexual offenses. Second, specifically condemning criminal homosexual seduction of adolescents and young men would be an appropriate first step for dealing with the homosexual subculture in the Catholic Church in the United States. Third, since most of the secular media of communication are sympathetic to so-called gays and reluctant to publicize criminal homosexual activity, speaking clearly about criminal homosexual seduction will dampen the media's enthusiasm for the story of "child sex abuse by Catholic priests." Now tell me, professor, why is it that homosexuals think the gay issue is merely a scapegoat to deflect attention from the Church's wrongdoing? So much horse-do for only one horse's arse to spew! Of course, immediately after writing that pithy indictment of Dr. Grisez I had to stumble across something sensible and charity demands I share it. ...The dissent has become institutionalized and significantly divides the collegium itself. This division cannot be overcome simply by using disciplinary measures against bishops and others, and a papal effort of that sort probably would be not only useless but harmful. The present division in the Catholic Church over sexual morality-and over other issues that at least some members of the collegium consider to be uncompromisable-can be overcome only by a collegial effort of the pope and the other bishops. And an effort to overcome divisions within the collegium will be genuinely collegial only if a truly representative group of bishops or all of them together exercise a deliberative function. Bishops ought to urge the Holy See to initiate such a genuinely collegial effort without further delay. Dr. Grisez goes to great lengths in this submission and I could probably go on forever criticizing it. It is the following passage, tame by comparison, that really inspired me to write tonight. Understanding and accepting the truth taught by the Church, he will know not only that all homosexual activity is gravely wrong but that the orientation itself is a disorder. He will feel neither proud nor ashamed of his affliction. He will not suppose that his sexual orientation is an asset for priestly ministry and will realize that it would be a serious liability if it became known to people entrusted to his pastoral care; many of them, and not least the parents of boys, would not easily trust or comfortably relate to a priest whom they knew to be homosexual. So, to avoid impeding people's access to Jesus through his ministry, such a candidate will not make a point of his homosexuality, any more than a candidate with some other problem that many people find distasteful would do. As a result, most people will never learn about his affliction. The few who do will have been told in strict confidence for some good reason. I'll talk about this passage in... Objective Disorder Rant #1Remember all of that crap about how "Love the sinner but hate the sin" was the church's teaching about homosexuals? Well, it was, as Bill Clinton might have put it "truthful but not exactly helpful". I'm pretty sure the Church does love homosexuals and they make it quite clear they don't approve of sodomy but "Love the sinner..." really sanitizes the Church's dim view of homosexual persons - even those who remain chaste. Church teaching on the homosexual orientation is best summarized in the following paragraph from the CDF's 1986 "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder. Yes, Virginia, I did notice that the paragraph described the homosexual inclination as a disorder and did not use the word "disordered" to describe the homosexual person. I believe however, that drawing that distinction is a little like saying "it's not that you are hideous looking; it's just that your face is hideous looking. The label of "objectively disordered" on an inseparable part of my personality (note that I said "inseparable" - not "defining" or "central") hurt like hell. My trust in Church teaching in this area was shattered when I heard it. Now when pressed, promoters of the term "objective disorder" will tell you it is a term of moral philosophy. The following description from the website of the conservative Catholic ministry Courage is typical: The term "objective disorder" is a philosophical term. It is used to describe homosexual attractions because such attractions can never lead to a morally good sexual act. It is objected that if a man lusts for a woman or vice versa, this too is an objective disorder. This latter example is not an objective disorder, because, if the man or woman controls this natural attraction, and wills to express it in the natural state of marriage, it is a good thing. The term "objective disorder" may strike some of us with same-sex attractions as being harsh, because we feel that we never asked to have homosexual attractions and we fear that this term is in some way condemnatory or derogatory. It is important to remember that "objective disorder" is a philosophical term which describes a particular inclination - it does not diminish our value and worth in the eyes of God. It is psychologically understandable that certain people struggle with homosexual attractions. The Church recognizes this and does not condemn people for simply having these attractions; however, the Church also teaches that homosexual acts are always immoral, and therefore, one must also accept that the inclination to engage in such acts is, philosophically speaking, objectively disordered. I can summarize this succinctly but fairly by saying that according to the Church, the conflict between homosexual attraction and Church teaching occurs either because the homosexual inclination is disordered or because their teaching is wrong and honey, the Church ain't wrong. With this in mind, my feelings are "Call me what ever you want...call me 'objectively disordered' if it makes you happy...(just don't call me late for dinner ---BA---DUM---BUM!)" It is worth noting that Courage knows what I suspect the Church knows - that the phrase "objective disorder" sounds harsh and is easily mistaken for a stigmatizing psychiatric term. Courage knows it has to clarify the term in order to win the trust of those to whom it wishes to minister. Others know they can usually get away with using this technical term without clarification and I see that as a form of false witness. Understanding and accepting the truth taught by the Church, he will know not only that all homosexual activity is gravely wrong but that the orientation itself is a disorder. He will feel neither proud nor ashamed of his affliction. He will not suppose that his sexual orientation is an asset for priestly ministry and will realize that it would be a serious liability if it became known to people entrusted to his pastoral care; many of them, and not least the parents of boys, would not easily trust or comfortably relate to a priest whom they knew to be homosexual. So, to avoid impeding people's access to Jesus through his ministry, such a candidate will not make a point of his homosexuality, any more than a candidate with some other problem that many people find distasteful would do. As a result, most people will never learn about his affliction. The few who do will have been told in strict confidence for some good reason. Dr. Grisez was speaking about homosexual candidates for the priesthood here but I suspect that too many in the Church believe that the "objectively disordered nature" of the homosexual orientation has many of the same unacceptable implications for lay Catholics, namely
Anyone laboring under the delusion that the Church's problems with homosexuality are all about "immoral lifestyle choices" needs to remember that the comments that inspired this discussion were made about people whose only "lifestyle choice" was that of a celibate priest!
Perhaps the Best Scandal Analysis I've Seen Yet!How to Save the Church: The Betrayal by Michael Sean Winters is, as my headline says, perhaps the best analysis I've seen yet on the scandals. Here is just one of his terrific insights: In fact, it was the bishops' refusal to see pedophilia from the child's point of view--their tendency to see it as merely a sin of the flesh rather than a radical betrayal of trust--that lies at the heart of the current scandal. And that refusal has deep roots. The relevant canons (Church laws) lump pedophilia together with other sexual acts and make no consideration of the victim at all. Most people are, rightly, forgiving of sins of the flesh. But when one uses a position of authority to coerce sexual relations from a minor, or even from a young person of majority age who is nonetheless a parishioner or an underling, this is a sin of the spirit, a betrayal of all that the Church says sexual love should express--the free gift of self in equality and freedom. A lengthy but terrific read! The Scandals: A Show of Schizophrenia?
Other examples of cultural contradictions abound. Take some of the newspapers that condemned the Church for the abuses by priests against male teen-agers. Previously these same papers editorialized against the Boy Scouts for wanting to exclude declared homosexuals from leadership positions. Following a Supreme Court ruling in their favor, the Scouts have faced a campaign by pressure groups seeking to penalize them financially for their policy on homosexuals. Note to Zenit (as if the lying scum there actually care): There is absolutely no contradiction whatsoever here! Knowing that an adult has abused children in the past is a good reason to keep them away from kids. Knowing that an adult has a homosexual orientation is a lousy and unjust reason to keep them away from kids. Bishops who knowingly put molesters into contact with kids - bad. Organization that fires Eagle Scout James Dale for attending a campus gay group on his own time away from the kids - also bad. The only way there would be a contradiction is if homosexual orientation and child abuse were the same thing - they are not! It isn't that the folks at Zenit are too dumb to draw the distinction - they just hope that their readers are! Tuesday, May 07, 2002
The Life Changing Nightly Ritual Of course I was too lazy to read the book - but I did adopt one of its rituals. Each night as I go to bed I pray (OK, praying was another step forward in this) to thank God for at least five things that touched my life that day. Apparently Ms. Ban Breathnach says you need to write them down - I probably should - but when I started I was too lazy for that too. I do make a point of recalling how the things I'm thankful for touched my day - I don't let myself just run down a laundry list of the same privileges every night. I was, and still am to some degree, a worrier and ruminator who tried to solve all of the world's problems instead of actually going to sleep. Now, I must Thank God first...and pray for my family and godchildren...then if there's time and anxiety left, I can resume my quest for the grand unifying theory that solves everything before sunrise. The blessings of God, and the large and loving family I must turn over to his care usually ensure that there is no time and anxiety left. Now I do take medication to control the ruminating as well - but I'm convinced the ritual has changed my life! So today, I would like to thank You, God, for
Amen! More ArticlesThere is a bit more about me and my journey and my thoughts on the current scandals affecting the Church in the following essay on the scandals I sent to a local priest at the beginning of April. I will leave a link to it rather than reprinting it here in order to spare the "scandaled out". I was already feeling like the blog villiage idiot - but then I read the superbly written Sursum Corda - now I really feel inadequate! Of particular note are recent posts on the lunacy of blaming gay priests and dissenters and a brief but sensible post commenting on priestly celebacy. The essay starts about 8 paragraphs into the Holy Thursday entry. Archbishop Chaput of Denver on Church as mother and teacher. Note to self: perhaps a few words on how healthy adults relate to their mothers is appropriate when you get a chance! And I have the Amy Welborn blog to thank for pointing me to the following Paul Wilkes column in the Boston Globe. I suspect I think a bit more highly of it than she does (I actually liked the column!). And I have her "reader Mark" (who appears to share Ms. Welborn's low opinion of the column) to thank for the following summary: So just to get this straight: Writing, phoning, calling the chancery is laudable if you're "progressive," "Spirit-killing" if you're a traditionalist in the grass complaining over a priest who, oh, let's say, dons a donkey head at the close of Mass. ...or perhaps if you're a traditionalist in the grass complaining about congregants thanking the choir with applause at the end of mass...or complaining about uppity women serving as Eucharistic Ministers and sharing their reflections in what looks too much like a homily...or complaining about a priest photographed with his shirt off, wearing beads and looking too much like a homosexual... I Wish I'd Said It MyselfCheck out the letters section of the Dallas Morning News for Tuesday. The first letter on public prayer is priceless. I'll reprint it here since the site makes you log in to see it. Public prayer Re: "Voluntary school prayer," Letters, April 22. John Shell indicates in his response letter that students have the option of listening to a prayer, or not, and that "the Constitution is not violated when someone hears a prayer and is offended by it." Why this insistence on loud, showy, lip-trembling prayer in public places? Would the Constitution be violated or Mr. Shell offended if the prayer began with "Hail, Satan" or some such other disapproved theology? Are those in the proximity of the prayer expected to alter behavior in a manner that shows respect for the prayer? Always unmentioned in the debate is that the disinterested third party is expected to "assume the position" to respect the beliefs of an individual whose very actions show no respect for any in earshot with a different view. Everyone knows that nobody can stop anybody from praying at any time. Prayer can be a powerful thing, and it should be encouraged in gatherings of like minds and similar methods. There is no need or biblical requirement to involve everyone in the vicinity in one's religious practice. I am reminded of a family discussion a couple of years ago about the banning of loudspeaker prayer at high school football games. My retired uncle, one of the truly fundamentally religious people I know, surprised me when he summed up the debate by stating, "God ain't deaf." So true, and so continually overlooked by those intent on promoting their religious views at every turn. T.L. Steed, Nacogdoches Monday, May 06, 2002
A Brief IntroductionI am a 40-year old, single Catholic living in Corpus Christi, Texas. I am a cradle Catholic, a product of 16 years of Catholic schooling, a Notre Dame (of Indiana) grad and a volunteer music minister for the Newman Center at the university where I teach math. I am liberal but whether I could really be called a dissenter is a tough question. On the one hand I do belong to one organization - Dignity/USA - which most folks classify as being in dissent. On the other hand, I can't think of a single Church teaching that I would say is absolute baloney. There are a few teachings I can't quite buy, mind you, but none that I adamantly disagree with. I'm not a huge fan of labeling the homosexual orientation as "an objective disorder" but my objections in this area are far stronger with regard to the social and church policies some claim are warranted by this label than by the label itself. That is a topic for many more posts at a later time. My life would be easier if the Church simply had the good sense to always agree with me but I can honestly say I'm not out to change Church teaching or "pressure" the Church to change its teaching - which some might see as a flaw in my credentials as a dissenter or a heretic. My gripes with the Church tend to be more pastoral and political in nature. I tend to believe the hierarchy of the Church grossly overestimates how easily scandalized or easily "confused" the faithful are. I believe that the effort on the part of the hierarchy and other conservatives to blame dissenters who don't advocate sex with minors (and I know of no reform movement that does advocate adults having sex with minors) for the current sex abuse scandal is outrageous. Just as most Catholics who dissent on artificial contraception aren't going to announce that they're having sex while contracepting, you can be assured that I have no intention whatsoever on discussing the details of my private life here or in Church. I will not, however, be ruled by fear of who finds out I'm gay. Here's a modest proposal that I think most of your fellow parishioners who are gay would buy. Don't assume that you know anything about my private life simply because you've figured out (or in this case, read) that I'm gay and, in turn, I won't infer that your civility and decency implies any sort of approval of what you think I'm doing in private! Really. Need to know more? Want to know more? I've been told that the following essay I wrote to a priest on the scandals does a very good job of describing who I am. My Solution to the ScandalsI wrote this immediately after the Cardinals' meeting in Rome Of all the ideas floated to the media this week, the one that has the most promise seems to be the idea of lay involvement in personnel decisions. I have my concerns - and have heard others - about exactly which lay people are involved and to whom are they accountable. Fr. Richard Neuhaus was expressing some concern this morning on Meet the Press that lay boards not contain people who wish to undermine the mission of the Church (as he sees it). On the other hand, I fear that lay involvement may be limited to folks who are only accountable to the episcopate and no more willing to bring wrongdoing to light. By this, I mean people like Ray Flynn, for example. I get the impression that if Cardinal Law had dead bodies buried in his basement, Ambassador Flynn would be explaining to us how we can't be absolutely sure His Eminence actually meant to harm them. So how do we create a process for lay involvement that includes both accountability to Rome to ensure authentic Catholicity (and, let's face it, to appease uber-conservatives) and accountability to the laity to help restore trust in the leadership of the hierarchy? I have a modest proposal. Each diocese should have a lay oversight and advisory board with at least some of the members elected by the laity - perhaps by members of parish councils. These elected members don't even have to be a majority - say two or three members of a 9-to-15-member board. The rest of the positions could be appointed by the Bishop to ensure the board has expertise in areas the Bishop deems useful. The board should have complete access to the workings of the diocese in personnel and financial matters. It's role, however, should be purely advice and oversight (OK, perhaps the laity should have a bigger role than advice and oversight but that's the sort of "deal-breaker" that could delay reform - and with the lives of children and adolescents in the balance, delay is unacceptable). The final authority for decisions should rest with the Bishop. Lay accountability would be accomplished because if members of such a board saw anything sleazy in the operation of the diocese, they would be able to blow the whistle to the community at large through the media. The willingness and ability to blow the whistle would be guaranteed by the fact that at least some of the board members were elected. This would hopefully end what I have referred to earlier as the culture of secrecy by making it clear that secrets aren't likely to stay secret. | ||||
