Posted on 06/16/2005 4:46:30 PM PDT by maryz
The Washington Times reports that "the U.S. Catholic bishops will sidestep the issue of whether gay men should become priests at their semiannual meeting," which began today at the Chicago Fairmont.
And why, boys and girls, was it a foregone conclusion that the bishops would "sidestep" the issue? Because the question of whether gays should be ordained cannot be addressed without first addressing a considerably more explosive question: the number of bishop-disputants who are themselves gay and have a profound personal interest that there be no public examination of the connections between their sexual appetites, their convictions, and their conduct of office.
Let's do a little stock-taking of those U.S. bishops who are publicly known to be gay:
Nota bene: this isn't a roster of gay bishops. This isn't even a roster of gay bishops who have misbehaved. This is list of only those gay bishops whose misbehavior has gotten them in trouble with the law -- and that so deeply that their proclivities were objectively undeniable. What percentage of the total of gay bishops do they represent? I don't know and you don't know. And about the only things we do know are:
1) the bishops won't be up front with us about names or numbers;
2) their clandestine gay brethren are voting, caucusing, doing committee work, legislating, cutting deals, and deciding (among other things) whether gays should be admitted to the seminaries;
3) all bishops, gay and not, will maintain in public that there is no reason to believe a gay bishop would use his vote -- on this or any issue -- in any way other than to advance the good of the universal Church.
The abuse scandal has already cost the U.S. Church $1 billion, as well as immeasurable spiritual harms, predicated on the grotesquely perverse intuition that personal sexual anarchy can co-exist in a truce with priestly life. The fact that the obvious reckoning can still be "sidestepped" tells us all we need to know about the episcopal will for reform.
Say hello to the future, folks.
Not sure why the picture doesn't show up, but you can see it at the link, if you wish.
"but you can see it at the link, if you wish."
I wish I hadn't.
"Say hello to the future, folks.
ping
I wouldn't trust the bishops to fix my garbage disposal.
Truthfully, the worst of the lot are approaching retirement. Maybe they could retire early?
Well, we have a Rainbow Gay Pride Flag flying on our diocesan website. So I am assuming you can add Bishop Anthony Pilla to the list.
http://www.dioceseofcleveland.org/gayandlesbianfamilyministry/contact_us/index.htm
Well, slap my mitre and call me Judy!
Clang, clang, clang went the trolley
Ding, ding, ding went the bell
Zing, zing, zing went my heartstrings as we started for Huntington Hell.
Chug, chug, chug went the motor
Bump, bump, bump went the brake
Thump, thump, thump went my heartstrings as we glided for Huntington Bake.
The day was bright, the air was sweet
The smell of honeysuckle charmed me off my feet
I tried to sing, but couldn't squeak
In fact I felt so good I couldn't even speak
Buzz, buzz, buzz went the buzzer
Time to all disembark,
Time to fall went my heartstrings as we got off at Huntington Park
As we got off at Huntington Dark.
Judy
With my high-starched collar, and my high-topped shoes
And my hair piled high upon my head
I went to lose a jolly hour on the Trolley and lost my heart instead.
With his light brown derby and his bright green tie
He was quite the handsomest of men
I started to yen, so I counted to ten the I counted to ten again
Clang, clang, clang went the trolley
Ding, ding, ding went the bell
Zing, zing, zing went my heartstrings
From the moment I saw him I fell
Chug, chug, chug went the motor
Bump, bump, bump went the brake
Thump, thump, thump went my heartstrings
When he smiled I could feel the car shake
He tipped his hat, and took a seat
He said he hoped he hadn't stepped upon my feet
He asked my name, I held my breath
I couldn't speak because he scared me half to death
Chug, chug, chug went the motor
Plop, plop, plop went the wheels
Stop, stop, stop went my heartstrings
As he started to go then I started to know how it feels
When the universe reels
All
The day was bright, the air was sweet
The smell of honeysuckle charmed you off your feet
You tried to sing, but couldn't squeaks
In fact, you loved him so you couldn't even speak
Judy
Buzz, buzz, buzz went the buzzer
Plop, plop, plop went the wheels
Stop, stop, stop went my heartstrings
As he started to leave I took hold of his sleeve with my hand
And as if it were planned he stay on with me
And it was grand just to stand with his hand holding mine
To the end of the line
I think Diogenes is using "gay" in the unofficial but increasingly used sense of those committed to what's known as "the gay lifestyle," as opposed to homosexuals who do not necessarily define themselves by it, much less celebrate it.
He does seem to be a rather odd duck! But Diogenes restricted himself to those who managed to run afoul of the law and the press. (The question, of course, arises of whether it's better behavior or more clout with law enforcement/press that keeps others out of the papers.)
The statement, which will be crafted by USCCB staff and voted on at the bishops' November meeting in Washington, is a "tremendous opportunity," Washington Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick said."If we don't take this moment," he said, "we'll be missing a great opportunity."
On the issue of priestly celibacy, two bishops noted there was nothing in the 84-page "Program of Priestly Formation" about a required period of sexual abstinence before entering the seminary.
Archbishop Elden F. Curtiss of Omaha, Neb., asked why mention of "a period of sobriety required for sexually active candidates" had been removed from the document, which will set policy for future seminarians.
Bishop John C. Nienstedt of New Ulm, Minn.,, chairman of the USCCB's committee on priestly formation said the Vatican would release a document on "homosexuality vis-a-vis admissions to seminaries, so we thought it wise to wait until this document from the Holy See."
"I was not talking just about homosexuality," Archbishop Curtiss responded. "I was talking about sexual experience ... both of those [items were] dropped out."
Stay tuned.
I could add another bishop's name to the list of homosexuals - this one acting out with his priests (but I will not because of confidentiality). I agree that we have an endemic problem of homosexuality among the clergy. But I lay a good deal of the blame on Catholic men in general. Where has been the outrage of father's when so many of their sons have been molested by clergy. Why aren't fathers sending a very strong message to priests and bishops along the lines of: "If you assign a homosexual priest to my parish, I will do all in my power to rid the parish of his presence and if he comes anywhere near my son I'll break both his legs." Where are the men? Where are the fathers?
Dear veritas2002,
"Why aren't fathers sending a very strong message to priests and bishops along the lines of: 'If you assign a homosexual priest to my parish,...'"
Not every effiminate priest is homosexual, and not every homosexual priest is effeminate. Thus, without direct evidence and knowledge, it's difficult to make the judgment that a priest is homosexual. My wife and I have been married 22 years (next month) and known a few parish priests in that time. Only one of those was quite clearly outwardly effeminate.
I'm not sure if he was also homosexual. He did leave the priesthood, but when the cardinal requested that he be retained to his vow of celibacy, he resisted. He said he didn't want to be precluded from marrying (this pre-dates the whole "homo marriage" agenda by many years). Perhaps he was just putting on a brave front because he didn't want to come out of the closet. Or perhaps he was just an effeminate heterosexual man.
On the other hand, a priest that we knew from New Jersey turned out to be a molestor of adolescent boys. We were shocked as he seemed to be a regular guy, reasonably masculine, stereotypically, ordinarily heterosexual.
sitetest
I was referencing the bishops' apparent reluctance to make a clear statement to those who are applying for candidacy to the priesthood: If you are homosexual in orientation, the priesthood is not for you. This does not mean that if you are homosexual and celibate, you are damned to hell. Quite on the contrary. But it does mean that because of our theology of the priesthood - that a priest is configured to Christ who himself relates as spouse to his bride the Church - then the 'sign' would be defective if one were to admit a homosexual to the priesthood.
I know that it is problematic to ascertain WHO is in fact homosexual among the current order of priests, but the least that bishops ought to guarrantee the laity is a clear statement about homosexuality and the priesthood.
One final point: As a psychologist who has treated priests for sexual misconduct, there is no way anyone would convince me that the child sex abuse scandal was not an issue of homosexuality. What is most interesting is that the percent of offending priests pretty much matches the percent of homosexuals within the general population
Dear veritas2002,
I'm in complete agreement that the Church should do what it can to avoid ordaining homosexuals. Even the chaste ones.
My point was merely that we can guess at who is and who isn't homosexual, but lots of folks are in the closet, and we fathers generally have no reliable way of discerning just who is and who isn't homosexual. This was in response to your:
"Why aren't fathers sending a very strong message to priests and bishops along the lines of: 'If you assign a homosexual priest to my parish, I will do all in my power to rid the parish of his presence and if he comes anywhere near my son I'll break both his legs.'"
As a father, I'm reluctant to break anyone's legs because he's a homosexual if I'm not really positive that he is a homosexual.
"I know that it is problematic to ascertain WHO is in fact homosexual among the current order of priests,..."
That was my point. You have taken Catholic fathers to task for failing to break legs, but you can see that without accurately ascertaining first who is indeed a homosexual, we fathers could wind up breaking a lot of legs inappropriately.
"What is most interesting is that the percent of offending priests pretty much matches the percent of homosexuals within the general population."
Okay. What do you infer from that? One thing that I might infer from your statement is that the population of homosexuals in the priesthood is not quite as high as some have alleged (30% or more), and is perhaps much closer to the general population at large (1% - 3%), but that a large percentage of homosexual priests, then, are molestors. I'm not sure I agree with either part of that inference.
sitetest
I accept your comments but let me add this...I do happen to know of a priest in a diocese who was known BEFORE ordination to frequent gay bars and to live an active gay lifestyle. The bishop was informed of this by a number of people and went ahead and ordained him anyway. Now two years after his ordination he has been removed from active ministry because he plied a male parishioner (not a minor)with alcohol and then sexually assaulted him while under the influence. Now this doesn't come under the child sexual abuse scandal, but it is an example of the same predatory homosexual MO. My disgust is this: the bishop was warned about this guy and did nothing. All I am saying is that the bishops are amply aware in many cases of males who have no business being ordained and do nothing, because oftentimes they too are homosexual and don't want to be 'outed.' I know too that many priests who lived in the same rectories as these guys knew exactly what was going on in terms of underage males being brought into priests' bedrooms. They too are repsonsble because they turned their heads. Once again, I say that it is the duty of men and fathers to put the bishops and priests on notice: "Don't even think about doing anything to harm my child." If there's an unidentified predator in the neighborhood, fathers assume added vigilance to protect their children. Where have the father's been?
Dear veritas2002,
"I accept your comments but let me add this..."
Okay, thanks.
"I do happen to know of a priest in a diocese who was known BEFORE ordination to frequent gay bars and to live an active gay lifestyle. The bishop was informed of this by a number of people and went ahead and ordained him anyway."
I agree with you absolutely that this is absolutely wrong.
"All I am saying is that the bishops are amply aware in many cases of males who have no business being ordained and do nothing,..."
I agree that there are many bishops who permit even non-chaste homosexuals to be ordained. But not all.
I know that in the Archdiocese of Washington, non-chaste men, either homosexual OR heterosexual, are not considered as candidates for the priesthood.
Frankly, I prefer the policy of some bishops, which is to reject homosexuals, chaste or not, as candidates for the priesthood. I've heard that was the policy of James Cardinal Hickey, the previous Archbishop of Washington, DC. I hope it will be restored by Cardinal McCarrick's successor. Cardinal McCarrick will submit his letter of resignation in the next three weeks.
"I know too that many priests who lived in the same rectories as these guys knew exactly what was going on in terms of underage males being brought into priests' bedrooms. They too are repsonsble because they turned their heads."
As an "underage male," I spent a lot of time alone with a particular parish priest when I was growing up. Sometimes even in his living quarters. Was this priest after me? Of course. He showered me with attention, and even gifts. He was after me, all right.
He was after me to become a priest.
In all the years I knew him, and I spent probably a few hundred hours absolutely alone with him, never did I ever perceive for a moment that he had any prurient interest in me at all. Not for even a second. As a disgustingly heteronormative male, I'd have run shrieking if I had thought otherwise.
And I wasn't the only underage male to whom he gave his attentions. He was actively recruiting young men to the priesthood.
Had his roommates thought to "turn him in," they would have been turning on an entirely innocent man. Often, individuals may refrain from action because they are unsure of what's really going on. Thirty years ago, it just wasn't so odd for young men to hang out with their parish priests. I and the other young men who hung out with Fr. W. were actually seriously considering priestly vocations. We never gave a thought to other considerations.
Fr. W. was/is a good priest. He helped me discern whether or not I had a calling to the priesthood. Turns out, I didn't. He was disappointed.
"Once again, I say that it is the duty of men and fathers to put the bishops and priests on notice: 'Don't even think about doing anything to harm my child.'"
Well, I'm glad we're past breaking legs of suspected homosexuals. ;-)
"If there's an unidentified predator in the neighborhood, fathers assume added vigilance to protect their children. "
If the predator is unidentified, just precisely how should fathers know to add vigilance?
"Where have the father's been?"
Well, my father was at work.
Sorry, but the fact is, that a relatively small number of priests turned out to be molestors (although they managed to molest a lot of kids between them). Growing up, it wasn't until I was in my 20s that I'd heard of even one case of a priest-molestor; that was the fellow in New Jersey. I suppose that many fathers didn't suspect that there were some priests out there diddling some of their sons. My father certainly didn't. And why should he have suspected that? It wasn't actually happening.
As for what fathers do today, well, I think that how we handle these issues has changed. Except in the confessional (old-style), my sons are never, ever, ever alone with a priest, deacon, layman, or any other adult. Period. Although it saddens me in some ways, my sons will never, ever, ever be permitted to hang out, one-on-one, with any priest or deacon, or layman, or any other adult. Period. Ever. They will not receive the guidance from someone like Fr. W., as I did. I regret that.
But I think there are lots of fathers today who think like I think, and who act like I act. This, in spite of the fact that our own fathers never even thought to have any concern for these situations.
sitetest
I suspect that many of the boys who have been molested do not have fathers or their father's are absent for some reason. I could be wrong but it would make sense for these monsters to take advantage of this sort of situation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.