Sunday, February 3, 2019

Whither the Catholic Church on homosexuality and its cadre of homosexual priests


Publicly acknowledged to be gay and a practicing Catholic,  Andrew Sullivan's recent column in New York Magazine's "Intelligencer" rates a read by any thoughtful and conservative-minded Catholic [a shrinking breed that likely included Mr. Sullivan not that long ago], be they straight or gay  ---  it is an in depth study of the Catholic Church's problems in dealing with: homosexuality;  so-called "traditional doctrines and rules" about homosexuality;  specific teaching and rules concerning priests and [their possible] homosexuality and/or homosexual tendencies;  and the internal and external politics of it all



Even if you aren't Catholic  ---  or  ---  if you are a Catholic that doesn't care about what's going on inside what you see as a merely formalistic Catholic Church  ---  the information that Mr. Sullivan is passing on is useful in seeing how the Catholic Church is being "deconstructed" from within and without in these revolutionary times  ---  whether Andrew Sullivan is an agent of that "deconstruction" or a defender against it remains to be seen and evaluated, in these parts

Sullivan starts off his main text with this:   "....   We have no reliable figures on just how many priests in the Catholic Church are gay. The Vatican has conducted many studies on its own clergy but never on this subject. In the United States, however, where there are 37,000 priests, no independent study has found fewer than 15 percent to be gay, and some have found as many as 60 percent. The consensus in my own research over the past few months converged on around 30 to 40 percent among parish priests and considerably more than that — as many as 60 percent or higher — among religious orders like the Franciscans or the Jesuits....   This fact hangs in the air as a giant, unsustainable paradox. A church that, since 2005, bans priests with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” and officially teaches that gay men are “objectively disordered” and inherently disposed toward “intrinsic moral evil” is actually composed, in ways very few other institutions are, of gay men....   The massive cognitive dissonance this requires is becoming harder to sustain. The collapse of the closet in public and private life in the past three decades has made the disproportionate homosexuality of the Catholic priesthood much less easy to hide, ignore, or deny. This cultural and moral shift has not only changed the consciousness of most American Catholics (67 percent of whom support civil marriage for gay couples) and gay priests (many of whom are close to quitting) but also broken the silence that long shrouded the subject....   Five years ago, Pope Francis made his watershed “Who am I to judge?” remark after being asked about a flawed gay priest. 'A person once asked me, in a provocative manner, if I approved of homosexuality,'  Francis went on. 'I replied with another question: 'Tell me, when God looks at a gay person, does he endorse the existence of this person with love or reject and condemn this person?" We must always consider the person. Here we enter into the mystery of the human being.'   In the final draft of the 2014 Synod on the Family, Francis included explicit mention of the 'gifts and qualities' of homosexuals, asking,  'Are we capable of welcoming [them]?'  These sentiments won 62 percent of the votes of the synod bishops — just shy of what was necessary to pass, but still evidence of a sharp shift in tone in official Catholic teaching....  They also triggered near panic on the Catholic right...."  (See  "The Gay Church -- Thousands of priests are closeted, and the Vatican’s failure to reckon with their sexuality has created a crisis for Catholicism"  by Andrew Sullivan, 1/21/19,  New York Magazine/ Intelligencer/ Catholic Church  [http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/01/gay-priests-catholic-church.html]).

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

A couple of related thoughts:

1. The statistic that 15% of priests are gay does not include a larger number of priests who identify as straight, but who molest minors, regardless of gender.

2. St. Peter and the original priests, bishops, and cardinals, were all married men. It was not until the First and Second Lateran councils of the Catholic Church in 1123 and 1139 that priests were explicitly forbidden from marrying. Perhaps a return to tradition is in order.

3. The root problem the church has with gays is that people believe the creator of all time and space, all matter and anti-matter, every star, planet, galaxy and universe, all life forms, all forms of existence ... is somehow perturbed about where certain humans place their genitalia.

Anonymous said...

I can easily tell that this "Galewyn Massey" is a pseudonym and that you're some kind of libertarian pseudo-conservative.

At least, try to be as honest in your report as Andrew Sullivan was in parts of his overly long screed against the mainstream of the Church he says that he's a part of.

I particularly refer to how you chose to edit your quote of Mr. Sullivan's material.

You ended your quote with this, "They (the current Pope's comments) also triggered near panic on the Catholic right...." At least Mr. Andrew Sullivan fleshed out what he meant by his pejorative reference to "panic on the Catholic Right" somewhat, at least giving it some context; and you failed in that miserably.

A fairer and more complete quote should have been this: "They also triggered near panic on the Catholic right. Alarmed by the possibility that divorced and remarried people might be welcomed as well as gays, traditionalists launched a fierce rearguard campaign against the new papacy, with a focus on what some called a “Lavender Mafia” running the church, and broke new ground in connecting this directly to the horrifying revelations of sex abuse that came to light in 2002. In increasingly direct ways, they have argued that the root of the scandal was not abuse of power, or pedophilia, or clericalism, or the distortive psychological effects of celibacy and institutional homophobia, but gayness itself.... 'There is a homosexual culture, not only among the clergy but even within the hierarchy, which needs to be purified at the root,” the American cardinal Raymond Burke declared in August. Bishop Robert Morlino of Wisconsin agreed. 'It is time to admit that there is a homosexual subculture within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that is wreaking great devastation,' he wrote. 'If you’ll permit me, what the church needs now is more hatred” of homosexual sexual behavior, 'a sin so grave that it cries out to heaven for vengeance.' Michael Hichborn, head of the fringe-right Lepanto Institute, called for a “complete and thorough removal of all homosexual clergymen from the church.... It is going to be difficult and will likely result in a very serious priest shortage, but it’s definitely worth the effort.'...”

Andrew Sullivan is a very bright man, who once seemed to be a little "conservative". Never forget that he has been an apologist for homosexuals coming out in the Catholic Church and their being fully accepted without reproach for doing so; and that includes priests. That makes him more "wolf" than "lamb"; and taking any position that looks conciliatory to the Church as a whole only makes him a "wolf in sheep's clothing".

I put it to you, Mr. Massey, or whoever you might be: "Are you also a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'?"

Anonymous said...

4:28 is missing the point entirely. Sounds like a cafeteria Catholic who wants Jesus and hatred too.

Anonymous said...

To 7:15 PM:
If we are honest "In these times", all of "us", who still call ourselves "Catholic", are one variety of "cafeteria Catholic" or another.
However, I have always thought that the phrase "Chinese menu Catholic" was both more accurate and more descriptive. Although I might add another sub-category, "Kosher Deli Kaddolik" to the list; you know the type, "I'll have what she's having...".
And so, why so caught up about the "hatred" and "Jesus" thing?
"Love" and "Hate", you really think you understand and appreciate those words and what they mean? So, explain this to me, how does the proposition, "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" come across as anything but glib gibberish when one talks about gay priests (or any other "sinful person")?

Anonymous said...

I worship the lord.

I dont worship an old man dressed up like an old lady claiming to have a direct line to the big guy. Also please understand that all priests age gay. When people live in a cloistered life such as priests its a lifestyle. It does not lend itself to a lifestyle that some are gay and some arent. All are gay. The question is how many are pedophiles? Whats clear is that no priest ever seems to blow the whistle on a pedophile. No pun intended.

Anonymous said...

8:33 is talking glib gibberish by referring to anyone who is gay as a sinful person.

The Jewish carpenter you folks are so fond of never said anything about homosexuality. Not. One. Word.

All references to it in the bible were made by ancient (and other) humans who believed the world was flat, an imbalance of humors caused disease, and similar nonsense.

Anonymous said...

To 11:46 AM:
Nice job setting up a straw man, and then demolishing him. I never said nor inferred that "anyone who is gay as a sinful person". What I did talk about was "Hate the sin, but love the sinner" and "when one talks about gay priests or any other 'sinful person' [my parentheses removed]". "In these times" I do believe that all gay priests are grave sinners; first, they are not following the rules, which priestly obedience requires them to follow; second, they are trying to live a lie; whether engaging in homosexual acts or not. As for my phrase "any other 'sinful person'", that pretty much means everybody at sometime or another.

Anonymous said...

12:17, sin is a concept, not a reality.