An Unneeded Headache (Vatican document on admitting homosexual to the priesthood)

Catholic World News ^ | July 8, 2005 | Diogenes

[maryz]

John Allen's Word from Rome reports that the document on homosexual candidates for the priesthood is on the Pope's desk. The good news is that it's good news. The bad news is that it's bad news for a lot of men responsible for implementing it. Sound familiar?

Sources indicate that the long-awaited Vatican document on the admission of homosexuals to seminaries is now in the hands of Pope Benedict XVI. The document, which has been condensed from earlier versions, reasserts the response given by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments in 2002, in response to a dubium submitted by a bishop on whether a homosexual could be ordained: "A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency, is not fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders." ...

Several American bishops were in Rome last week for the June 29 pallium ceremony, and I spoke to some of them about the document. Privately, some hope Benedict will decide to put the document in a desk drawer for the time being, on the grounds that it will generate controversy and negative press without changing anything in terms of existing discipline.

What d'you mean, "generate" controversy, your Grace? The controversy has been raging for years. The point of this document is to put an end to it -- as indeed it would, were most bishops disposed to be guided by its instructions.

As one bishop put it to me, the policy against ordaining homosexuals is already clear -- the only interesting question is, what do you mean by a "homosexual"?

If you have to ask, you don't want to understand the answer.

At one end of the continuum, it could refer to anyone who once had a fleeting same-sex attraction; at another, it could be restricted to someone who is sexually active and openly part of a "gay pride" movement. Most people would exclude those extremes, but where is the line drawn in between?

Well lads, there's almost certainly a "continuum" of attraction manifested in necrophilia and bestiality too, but to date seminaries haven't shipwrecked on the problem. When the formatores are free of the disorder themselves, and have no qualms about eliminating it, they manage to identify it without great hand-wringing.

Vatican sources have made clear the document will not enter into these details, and hence this bishop believes it's an unneeded headache.

A headache for whom? For the long-suffering laity? For good-willed and healthy seminarians? Nope. It's a headache for the bishops -- especially those bishops who are conflict averse or who have important personal PASTORAL reasons for keeping this particular issue -- and the Holy See's directives thereon -- far from the glare of the spotlight. In short, it looks like business as usual.

[maryz]

and a direct attempt to cloud the issue.

Well, yeah. How can you "keep the dialogue going," as they say, if you insist on finality?

[maryz]

what to do with the active homosexual priests.

Including the active homosexual bishops? (Assuming that all of them haven't been arrested or otherwise made the news yet.)

[pgkdan]

The scene with Strother Martin playing the horse auctioneer to Mattie Ross (Kim Darby) in "True Grit" is also great. The dialog of that movie is one of kind. It also delivers another great quote:

Absolutely right! I've told my wife that I could just listen to that movie without the picture and still enjoy it immensly. I've seen it about 100 times and never get tired of it.

[snarks_when_bored]

Frank, getting old is a distressing thing. I remembered that there was no "a" in front of "failure", but I screwed up by replacing the correct "we've got" with the incorrect "we have". A sad state of affairs. But, on the pleasant side, I'm appending a link to a very clear WAV audio file of Strother's reading of the following lines:

"What we've got here is ... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach."

Strother Martin WAV audio file

 

As McCloud used to say, "Thair yuh go."

[snarks_when_bored]

Follow-up to my previous post #24...

I think I see why there has been some confusion about Strother Martin's 'failure' line. Later in the movie, Paul Newman mockingly echoes that line, and here is exactly what he says (with WAV audio file appended):

"What we got here is a failure to communicate."

Paul Newman WAV audio file

And, to repeat Strother's lines and audio:

"What we've got here is ... failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach."

Strother Martin WAV audio file

Notice that Newman says "we got" instead of "we've got", and also puts an 'a' in front of "failure", which Strother did not.

That cinches it for me, anyway!

Best regards...

[Coleus]

that's some list you have.

[visualops]

Is there not a fabulous play on the word "here" so that it sounds to the ear as "hee-ya"

That's not a play on words, that's a good-ole Southern drawl.

[SaltyJoe]

Thanks for all the pings.

I think what many have lacked are simple exorcisms. Granted, Reconciliation the the Holy Eucharist are Sacraments more powerful than exorcism, but I hardly doubt that learned men would have seen through the fog if evil hadn't clouded their vision. Remember, Jesus commanded his Apostles to cast out demons.

If a wise man has to question, "What is a homosexual?" then how easily may a violence-prone killer pass as a priest through the ranks? What's the difference between such evil? A lot? I should think not. The same argument that's made for homosexuality is the same excuse a murderer might use at his own trial.

"Your honor, the defendant came from an abused background, has a violent father/family, was BORN like this."

Usually, the public only has to groan over a politician's rhetoric concerning the definition of "is". Now good people and all who desire a life of holiness must suffer clerical rhetoric too. Alas, prayer and fasting will remove this devil.

God Bless.

[SaltyJoe]

Sorry about my earlier dissatisfaction (and a flare of anger) in my last post.

In reviewing what is a "homosexual", let's examine sin as Jesus values Purity compared to what's offensive in His sight. This can all be done in one simple Chapter with clearly narrows the definition of adultery and murder.

Matthew 5:21-22, 27-28

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew5.htm

21
"You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, 'You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.'
22
But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, 'Raqa,' will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, 'You fool,' will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

---
...and in the same Chapter:

27
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.'
28
But I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

---
Thus, with the same example of Christ's command, we know where and when we offend Him in matters of lust (even toward another of the same sex). This Chapter is particularly defining against matters of violence and/or self-abuse as homosexuality is an abomination against Nature.

Again, I apologize for my earlier post. I went to Reconciliation this afternoon to clear up this matter between me and Jesus. I'm a poor reflection of Christ's Love and hope that I didn't offend anyone. I freely admit that my own worn out shoes display intelligence than I, but "I" am the only one who wants to admit that. Playing word games with vocabulary and good & evil reversals really annoys the sense of right and wrong. So, I thank God for giving me the Sacrament of Reconciliation to confront such demons. Now, I'm off to talk to The Lady...it's part of my penance.

:-)

[Salvation]

You have some too, FRiend!

[maryz]

Any conscious adult with an IQ greater than his foot size knows what that statement means.

Curiously enough, from what I read, they have no trouble spotting "homophobes"!

[Desdemona]

I think what many have lacked are simple exorcisms.

It would help if there were more priests out there with the stomach to actually do them. And if they could use the old rites. The new ones don't work.

[johnb2004]

True.