Since the news reports a week ago that the Vatican is about to ban
new gay priests, whether or not they remain celibate (see our prior
post), I’ve been hoping the thoughtful contributors at Mirror of Justice
would discuss the topic. So far, there has only been one MOJ post,
which quotes at length from a column written by a gay and celibate
American priest, but offers no commentary.
Two days ago, a self-proclaimed “serious Catholic” sent me a link
to this article from a website called Spirit Daily, which was apparently written
by its editor Michael H. Brown — “If the Church Gets Tough — Very Tough —
with DEVIANCE, Pope Will Make His Mark.” The sender declared that
“it is an excellent article, written with honesty and a clear understanding of
the Church’s teachings.”
The message of the article is, to my mind, quite remarkable and sad. After
declaring that homosexuality is a “deviance,” caused by “demonic” forces,
the article states
“the truth is that those who are homosexual grapple with a
disorder that requires deliverance. It is a spiritual issue. And
while they struggle with that disorder they do not belong in a
position of any spiritual authority.”
After recommending a purge of homosexuality from the clergy, it concludes:
“We must purify the Church at all costs. Nothing else will work. A gay should
not become a priest. He should seek out a good priest for help and deliverance.”
To me, this message is hateful and not the least bit “Christlike.” Jesus, who
loved sinners, surely loved non-sinners who merely had tendencies — biological
urges and preferences apparently given to them by their Creator.
As a Catholic grammar school pupil, I was taught by nuns and priests that any
sin of a sexual nature — including “impure thoughts” not immediately purged
from our minds — was a mortal sin (leading to eternal damnation if not confessed
before death). I guess the Vatican believes that gays can never win the fight
against such impurity, and that merely abstaining from acting on the impulses
is not enough. I would hope that this kind of thinking is quite worrisome to the
thinking Catholic, even those who pledge their obedience to their Pope.
It’s estimated that perhaps as many as 30% of
priests are gay. For generations (centuries?), an adolescent
male’s lack of normal teenage interest in girls was seen by his
Catholic family and clergy as a sign that he might have a
“vocation” from God to enter the priesthood. Ironic, huh?
As a former Catholic, I know my perspective may not be clear or objective
enough. That’s why I hope to hear from practicing, serious Catholics on
this subject. Help me understand. Better yet, help your Pope avoid the
turning of an ancient form of fear and discrimination into a policy that should
have no place in the Church that claims to speak for Christ on earth.
September 29, 2005
MOJ, please talk about gay priests
risking a cartwheel
leaves drift
into the gorge
I pick one to follow
autumn wind —
trying to keep myself
under my hat
soft earth
I might risk
a cartwheel
from Upstate Dim Sum (2005/I)
potluck
Eugene Volokh had a very good post yesterday on whether it is
“inconsistent” for Federalists to look to the federal government for solutions
on particular topics. He distinguishes between federalism (which says that
the central government has the authority to act in certain situations, and the
states in others) and localism (which wants all issues settled at the local level),
and notes:
“One can certainly argue that federalists are mistaken about where
the line should be drawn, or even inconsistent in drawing that line.
But one needs to do that by concretely explaining why the line should
be drawn in a particular place, or why two things must in any event be
on the same side of the line — one can’t just point to the federalist’s
supporting national solutions in some situations and state solutions
in others and say “Aha! Inconsistency!” Federalism is all about supporting
national solutions in some situations and state solutions in others. More
broadly, I suspect that good judgment, left, right, center, or libertarian is
all about supporting national solutions in some situations and state
solutions in others.
Prof. V also observes that “we need to be careful in allegations of inconsistency
(and especially of hypocrisy). Often the inconsistency is more illusory than real,
or at least demonstrating it requires a lot more argument than critics actually provide.”
(via Bainbridge) Personally, I don’t know what’s more disturbing: that so many people
are willing to brand opponents as inconsistent because they truly cannot think
through these issues, or that so many people know better but are willing to make the
charges simply to gain political advantage.
“traffic cop SF”
Comments Off on risking a cartwheel