Papal Nuncio Accuses Pope Francis of Covering McCarrick’s Abuse - And Names Names
  • francis
    Posts: 10,848
    My take off the top of my head...

    Sports... not much in a closed room one on one... safety in numbers and the nature of a public excersize. With sports you are in and out.

    Scouting... dangerous with lots of “opportunity”

    Deaf music director... holy cow... I know by experience this is disaster.

    Seminaries... don’t fool yourself.

  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,220
    A couple of recent comments about church law have spoken about impediments to the sacrament of Orders. Under current law, the only impediments relate to the candidate's own behavior, but this has not always been the case. Under the old 1917 Code, a man might be deemed inappropriate for the sacrament of Orders because of factors other than his own behavior. Men born out of wedlock were "irregular" for the sacrament. Also, men with certain physical deformities (congenital or otherwise) were irregular for ordination. These impediments were not really fair to the men involved, and could be surmounted with a suitable dispenation, but there was some logic behind them. Perhaps the fact of being born out of wedlock was taken as a risk factor pointing to possible psychological maladjustments.

    A recent essay by Mary Eberstadt wonders about the possibility of avoiding men who were victims of sexual abuse in childhood as candidates for the priesthood: obviously not because of any fault on their part, but as a means of reducing potential dangers. Prof. Ed Peters relates Eberstadt's idea to the law of the Church, present and past.
    Thanked by 1francis
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    Two Popes have firmly stated that men with homosexual inclinations should NOT be ordained. It's not a Canon law, but it's more than a suggestion. But since bishops rarely, if ever, pay attention to Popes....
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    Furthermore, what about the gay priests who choose holy orders to help themselves abstain from their disorder, to place themselves in an environment conducive to celibacy of all kinds?


    Pope Benedict specifically said that homosexual or homosexually-inclined men should not be allowed to use seminary or Holy orders as a means of escape, or the vow of celibacy to be an "excuse" to attract people with homosexual tendencies.

    Given the apparent fact that quite a few seminaries seem to be hush-hush and okay with the seminarians having relations with one another, and or with their superiors, how is a homosexual - even with "the best of intentions" - supposed to be sure that they are entering a seminary that will foster his desire for the Holy Spirit, rather than his or others' desire for the flesh?

    Also, I agree with what was said above, and think it worth repeating: holy orders is a Sacrament, not a "right."

    The desire alone to become a priest is not sufficient, and there does not exist a right to receive sacred ordination. It belongs to the Church - in her responsibility to define the necessary requirements for receiving the sacraments instituted by Christ - to discern the suitability of him who desires to enter the seminary[12], to accompany him during his years of formation, and to call him to holy orders if he is judged to possess the necessary qualities[13].

    - from Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations
    with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,424
    Sir Baden-Baden Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts, was homoerotic. There are no tales or records of him engaging in unfortunate behaviour with any of his boys. His was an organisation that was an icon of virtue and wholesomeness. He, himself, was a noble example. And so are many in all walks of life, including priesthood, today. History is full of men such as Powell who left mankind and society enriched and besmirched no one. (On the other hand it is said of Russia's Peter the Great that his soldiers were not, shall we say, 'overjoyed' to draw guard duty outside of his bedroom at night.)
    Thanked by 3MarkS a_f_hawkins Schönbergian
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Jackson,

    Please notice your use of the past tense:
    His was an organisation that was an icon of virtue and wholesomeness.
    until that same organization chose to surrender that iconic status, such virtue and wholesomeness as it had in the name of …. what exactly?
    Thanked by 2Carol dad29
  • AndrewSteinerPiano
    Posts: 62
    Gay men can't be fathers psychologically. They fail ultimately as priests. The Church is wise to prohibit their ordination.
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    Praytell, what does literal childbearing fatherhood have to do with a celibate profession?
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    We are delighted to hear that Lord Baden-Powell was a good homosexual.

    So what?

    That does not change the fact that homosexuals should not be ordained. There is a difference between being a Scout leader and being a priest.
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,790
    I think the problem above is that for some people homosexual means someone who is 'actively' attracted to the same sex. It could also mean someone who is more attracted to members of their own sex... this is a big difference.

    While we don't want witch hunts of men that may have made a (sinful) mistake perhaps many years ago that they have repented of. Those that have acted our their desires and especially those that have done so after ordination we do need to look into these cases to find a way forward... This must take into account any civil crimes that may have been committed, and also not to put them into situation that may bring them into temptation.

    Also while we may be interested in what music our priests are attracted too, I am not to worried about what sex they may find more attractive. It is a bigger problem if they feel the urge to act on their attraction! and this would need to be dealt with... Sadly our bishops have not been able to deal with this and now they are paying the price.

    To be safe we should not allow men that 'actively' identify with being a homosexual into our seminaries.
  • AndrewSteinerPiano
    Posts: 62
    The Church never allowed homosexuals, whether active or not, into the priesthood.
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640


    It's not fair to the cleric, to put him in an environment where opportunity presents itself -- any more than your predisposition to alcoholism makes you a good candidate to work in a liquor store or a bar.



    I know several people with a history of alcoholism who work at liquor stores and bars and are perfectly content to keeps their hands off the goods, both at work and at home.
    Thanked by 2MarkS Elmar
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,478
    You cannot be a total abstainer from alcohol if you are a priest.
    'The Church never allowed homosexuals ... '
    1. Well clearly they did! Saint Peter Damian was very clear, 1000 years ago, that there should not be active homosexuals (in which he included self abuse) but it was a major problem then as well.
    2. Any documentary evidence ?
    Thanked by 4CharlesW M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen madorganist
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,986
    The more things change, the more they stay the same.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Elmar
    Posts: 506
    The Church never allowed homosexuals, whether active or not, into the priesthood.

    Nobody ever had a way to know who was/is a non-active homosexual, except the person him-/herself.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    That's why seminary spiritual directors and rectors were supposed to ask a lot of questions at a lot of stages of formation.

    And what's this "her" self? You talking about Methodist seminaries?
  • Elmar
    Posts: 506
    And what's this "her" self?

    I was speaking about people in general, not specifically (but including) seminarians.

    With respect to the latter: Current rules might give them an incentive to try to hide a possible homosexual inclination, which I believe might actually worsen the problem the Catholic Church faces concerning homosexual priests.
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    Nobody ever had a way to know...


    Eh, sometimes you really can tell by the way one talks and expresses oneself.

    My mom has said that back when my eldest siblings (12-14 years older than myself) were in parochial school, she went to one of the school Masses (because, at that point in the late-70s there was already an option to opt out of going to Mass... in Catholic schools), and upon hearing/watching the priest, immediately recognized that he was "clearly a homosexual," and decided to opt them out of Mass, just to be safe from whatever influence he might have over those young Mass-goers.

    1000 years ago...it was a major problem then as well

    People just don't learn, do they?
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    1000 years ago...it was a major problem then as well


    Then, as now, those making the news headlines (i.e., those in them, not those writing them, necessarily) are not behaving in a manner consistent with magisterial teaching.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 506
    Eh, sometimes you really can tell by the way one talks and expresses oneself. [...] and upon hearing/watching the priest, immediately recognized that he was "clearly a homosexual,"

    CCoze, does this qualify as "knowing" that he actually was homosexual? (serious question)

    Of course this kind of reasonning, also pertaining to other traits of a person unrelated to sexuality, is enough to decide whether you want your children (or yourself, for that matter) to be around a given person - but that's a different matter.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Elmar,

    Some of those traits are things one can't do anything about -- being male, being female, being black. Other traits are things one can do something about, and this is directly on point: chain smoker, kleptomaniac; alcoholic, sexual pervert
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,934
    does this qualify as "knowing" that he actually was homosexual? (serious question)


    Speaking as someone who has frequently gives the first impression of being gay (I'm not, in case you were wondering) I'd question this line of reasoning. Just because people have good 'gaydar' doesn't mean it's infallible.
    Thanked by 5CharlesW M. Jackson Osborn CHGiffen Elmar Carol
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,986
    No, it doesn't. A co-worker for years seemed rather soft and feminine. He wasn't gay, he just behaved as his parents raised him to be. That stuff doesn't always mean a thing.

    I sometimes give the impression I am a curmudgeon. It's not an impression, it's true.
    Thanked by 5M. Jackson Osborn StimsonInRehab CHGiffen Elmar Carol
  • madorganist
    Posts: 906
    Nobody ever had a way to know who was/is a non-active homosexual, except the person him-/herself.
    What about those who have slept or "fooled around" with the person in question? That's 100% certain knowledge, is it not? It's exactly the problem we're seeing in the seminaries! And what about those who admit it? Unless they're lying (but why?), that's pretty conclusive, especially when it's first-hand.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Madorganist,

    A person who has slept or fooled around isn't a non-active …..whatever.
    Thanked by 2Schönbergian Elmar
  • madorganist
    Posts: 906
    Of course. One can't prove a negative.
  • madorganist
    Posts: 906
    https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/parish-priest-breaks-silence-shares-he-gay
    Thanked by 4M. Jackson Osborn Elmar a_f_hawkins Carol
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,424
    Madorganist -

    Thank you for posting that story.

    What a brave priest!
    I wish they would all 'come out'.
    People would most likely be amazed. (Except for those perceptive few who would say 'Bless you, I knew it all along'.)
    I admire him and others like him who have similar stories of acceptance. To look at him, you would never think that he was gay. Most gays, I think, are like that. They look and act just like anyone else. They don't all parade down the street wearing pink tutus, nor are they all rather small, bony, squirrely, and polite as polite can be. They are just anybody else who happens to be wired differently, and they don't deserve the contempt, loathing, and exclusion which some unbelievably shabby-minded people cast upon them. With a congenital vocation to celibacy, they make, and always have made, excellent, loving priests for as long as there has been a Church - such as Gerard Manley Hopkins, to name but one.
    Thanked by 2Elmar CharlesW
  • Elmar
    Posts: 506
    Thanks MJO for your wise words.

    What a brave priest indeed! And even so his director of spiritual formation at the seminary, as well as his personal spiritual director, 25 years ago. I hope and pray that they still exist in seminaries today.
    Thanked by 2M. Jackson Osborn a_f_hawkins
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,986
    I can't imagine anyone who behaved more badly than St. Augustine before his conversion. If you are willing to give St. Augustine a pass (except for some of his theology, of course) why not extend the charity to others who reformed and are doing the best they can.
  • Ken of Sarum
    Posts: 406
    One is compelled to ask, is the Holy Spirit really at work and involved in any person(s), organization or church were such perversions and evils exist?
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    What a brave priest!
    I wish they would all 'come out'.


    Defining oneself as "Gay" instead of "male" or "priest of God" is foolish, at best, as this priest was told by both his Archbishop (Listecki) and another priest of this Archdiocese. Think of it this way: are you an American, or a MALE American?

    Yah, well....

    The man was suckered by the Usual Suspects--New Ways--and is now under a microscope. Another Weakland legacy.

    And the source, NCR, can be relied upon to present propaganda for any anti-Catholic they can find.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    With a congenital vocation to celibacy, they make, and always have made, excellent, loving priests for as long as there has been a Church


    ....or the worst sort of predators.

    And you said a mouthful when you said "wired differently." That happens to be exactly why Popes and Saints have ordered that homosexuals NOT be ordained. Are you ever going to submit to their authority?
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    What a brave priest!


    Did you read what he said?
    Comparing the desire to repress vs. proclaim his homosexuality to Jeremiah's proclaiming the word of God?

    Then I recall the personal struggles of the prophet Jeremiah who desperately wanted to keep the Word of God to himself because it provoked such a negative response from those who heard his preaching. No matter how much he did not want to speak in the name of the Lord anymore, he could not hold it in.


    How does it always come down to this?

    That rainbow flag, that sacrilegiously hung in the sanctuary, and was recently exorcised and burned... people said, "WWJD? Surely not something as painful as this? No, He sat with sinners and loved all!!!!"
    People forget that He threw tables and destroyed the sacrileges found in His Father's house.
    At the VERY LEAST, surely He would have torn that flag in two..?
    Thanked by 3StimsonInRehab dad29 Incardination
  • Ken of Sarum
    Posts: 406
    GOD's Divine Love is a two edged sword. Perhaps some reminder of what happens to things and peoples can be gleaned from studying and meditating on what the bible has to say about the Ark of the Covenant or even watch key scenes in those two Indiana Jones movies, or recalling other biblical events throughout history where GOD's judgment brought rather unhappy or unpleasant outcomes. Profane things, peoples and acts will always receive their due justice from the Almighty. Be not deceived, GOD is not mocked. Nothing will be done in secret and hidden that will remain so.
    Thanked by 2Incardination M. Jackson Osborn
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    To echo Corinne's point,

    Ye brood of vipers...… ye whitewashed sepulchers...…

    These are words of love spoken in love to those who needed to hear them.
  • Maureen
    Posts: 679
    If a person has a serious propensity to gluttony, and also has diabetes that is uncontrolled, it would not be prudent for that person to apply to work in a chocolate factory and candy store. It would be suicidal and self-hating.

    It would not be loving or just to accept that person's application for the job. It would be the act of a vulture who wants to see him die.

    Sending men with SSA temptations into an all-male, live-in school for seven years?

    Sure, they might learn continence and chastity. If they exercise heroic virtue and lots of luck.

    But it's more likely that it will turn into one giant occasion of mortal sin. It's the act of a vulture who wants to make a man die forever.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,424
    There is so much wisdom and impeccable logic evident in some of the above comments.
    And, reflecting on it, it seems to me that what is good for the goose is good for the gander:

    Heterosexual men have a natural, very strong erotic attraction to the feminine sex. Therefore they should not be allowed to counsel women or be permitted in situations or activities at which women and young girls are present - and at all costs they should not be left alone with them. The temptation is far to great for them to be trusted, nor is it fair to them for them to be subjected to such temptations, or for us to expect them to exercise restraint when there are women or children around. There is, after all, quite a slew of documented cases of heterosexual priests engaging in sexual relationships with women, even married women, who come to them for counseling. Nor is it unheard of for numbers of them to keep mistresses. Therefore (ergo) heterosexual men should not be ordained.

    Unchastity is unchastity.
    Chastity is chastity.
    A vocation is a vocation.
    The Lord calls whom he will -
    and has done so throughout history.
    Thanked by 5a_f_hawkins Richard Mix Elmar Carol formeruser
  • CatherineS
    Posts: 690
    "Heterosexual men have a natural, very strong erotic attraction to the feminine sex. Therefore they should not be allowed to counsel women or be permitted in situations or activities at which women and young girls are present"...

    For this reason many priests I know never attend to women in any kind of private setting - the door is always open, or there are witnesses nearby who can see (but not hear) the conversation, or a traditional confessional located in a visible place is used. If a woman must be attended in her home, either her family is present or a group of trusted prayerful men and women from the church goes along. This may seem exaggerated, but one accusation can destroy a priest - so both from the perspective of guarding against temptation on the part of the priest and avoiding potential false accusations from others, great caution is taken.
    Thanked by 2Carol StimsonInRehab
  • Elmar
    Posts: 506
    This may seem exaggerated, but ...

    Satan has done a great job in his attempts to destroy the Curch. 0.01% sinful people in the 'right' position to wreck lives and faith of 0.1% of the people, another 0.1% people in the 'right' position to cover all this up, and all the others continue to live in constant mutual distrust.
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,934
    I believe it was the Cure of Ars who advised young priests never to make lasting eye contact with a woman for these very reasons.

    I'd charitably like to think this is the real reason why so many Catholic homeschooled children get the reputation of being anti-social. You know, the ones who stare at their own shoes. Of course you can tell the ones who went to Catholic school, since they're more outgoing - they stare at your shoes.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Carol
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,986
    I have believed that some in the more "conservative" camp are obsessed with the issue of same-sex attraction. If that were our only problem, life would be much simpler. Plenty of things are wrong in the church right now, so that instead of providing light, it provides confusion. I don't see that bad seminary formation, poor leadership, fuzzy doctrine, and a populist mindset are any less damaging to the faithful.
    Thanked by 4StimsonInRehab Elmar M. Jackson Osborn Carol
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Jackson,

    Natural inclination is still natural inclination, and un-natural inclination is still un-natural.

    Your logic makes sense up to a point. It's why men and women shouldn't serve alongside each other in the armed forces. A perfectly natural part of human nature is tempted, frequently beyond what humans wish to restrain. This, however, isn't the problem with homosexually-acting clerics. Their urge is un-natural.

    Maybe a little further clarification is in order? Persons who act homosexually don't necessarily "identify" as such.... actors on stage or in the movies, for example. If someone "identifies" with the life-style of an actively practicing Sodomite, the action is still un-natural and wrong, and is done out of sincere (wrong-headed) conviction instead of some other motive. Would it be true that anyone who "identifies" as a homosexual will, necessarily act on those urges? To put it another way, would an actively-practicing homosexual practice continence and chastity?
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    Priests who were ordained in the '50's and before were carefully instructed to be somewhat distant, even 'cold' toward women. 'Professionally cool' might be the best phrase. One hopes that the same training is in effect currently.

    Notwithstanding what the commenter above implies, it was then, and remains now the case that some women are very, very, attracted to priests; one could say they throw themselves at them. IOW, it isn't only priests who are 'attracted' to women. It's also the reverse, and I've witnessed that more than a few times.
    Thanked by 4StimsonInRehab CharlesW a_f_hawkins Elmar
  • madorganist
    Posts: 906
    it was then, and remains now the case that some women are very, very, attracted to priests; one could say they throw themselves at them.
    Unfortunately a Roman collar is a magnet for a certain kind of woman, just as a wedding band is for others.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    Mad Organist,

    These people (whom you mention) are experiencing a natural desire, but in a forbidden manner. Women should be drawn to a wedding band -- that of their own husband. Roman collars should attract women to the confessional, for this is the place where saintly clerics do their best work. Women should not be drawn to defiling holy orders or holy matrimony.
    Thanked by 1Carol
  • francis
    Posts: 10,848
    about 140 years ago, Cardinal Newman was aware of what was coming...

    For thirty, forty, fifty years I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of liberalism in religion. Never did Holy Church need champions against it more sorely than now, when, alas! it is an error overspreading, as a snare, the whole earth;

    Liberalism in religion is the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another, and this is the teaching which is gaining substance and force daily. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion, as true. It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion. Revealed religion is not a truth, but a sentiment and a taste; not an objective fact, not miraculous; and it is the right of each individual to make it say just what strikes his fancy. {65} Devotion is not necessarily founded on faith. Men may go to Protestant Churches and to Catholic, may get good from both and belong to neither. They may fraternise together in spiritual thoughts and feelings, without having any views at all of doctrine in common, or seeing the need of them. Since, then, religion is so personal a peculiarity and so private a possession, we must of necessity ignore it in the intercourse of man with man. If a man puts on a new religion every morning, what is that to you? It is as impertinent to think about a man's religion as about his sources of income or his management of his family. Religion is in no sense the bond of society.

    The general character of this great apostasia is one and the same everywhere; but in detail, and in character, it varies in different countries.

    Cardinal Newman, (after being raised to a Cardinal, 1879)


  • Incardination
    Posts: 832
    Might have already seen this, but for those who have not...

    https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vigano-responds-to-cardinal-ouellets-charge-of-rebellion-against-pope-36161?fbclid=IwAR1zpvbnwttr9KM2cOyWTv7gXKIjvxQF6zmecbXq5Rfq6TwnA6BSHDQggrU
Add a Comment