Catholic League’s head: Pope Francis should expel Vatican’s ‘Gay Lobby’

This doesn’t need a lot of commentary.

From NewsMax:

Catholic League’s Bill Donohue: Pope Must Oust Vatican’s ‘Gay Lobby’

The “gay lobby” Pope Francis says is at work in the Vatican must be ousted to prevent further damage to the Catholic Church, says Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

“The gay lobby needs to be rooted out and hopefully [Pope Francis] follows the footsteps of Pope Benedict in doing exactly that,” Donohue told “The Steve Malzberg Show” on Newsmax TV.

“It’s no secret … A gay lobby means that you’ve got a nest of homosexual priests who are covering for each other.”

On Thursday, it was revealed that Francis, in private remarks to a Latin American church group, acknowledged that a “gay lobby” is indeed in existence at the Vatican and must be dealt with.

For months, Italian newspapers have reported that powerful prelates who are gay exist in the Vatican and that some have become the victims of blackmailers who have threatened to out them.

Donohue said that over the years, but to a lesser extent now, gay lobbies have also existed in seminaries and parishes.

“[Bestselling author and Rev.] Andrew Greeley … referred to them as the Lavender Mafia. We shouldn’t have any of these people acting on their own with their own agenda,” Donohue said.

“You’ve got to crack this open. You’re either a priest committed to Jesus and everything else has to be secondary and once you have competing interests, whether it be sexuality or otherwise, then you’re the problem and you need to go.”

UPDATE:

A couple points.

When homosexuals become activists, promoting the “correctness” or “virtue” or “goodness” of an actively homosexual lifestyle, even if it is not open or public, we must look them in the eye and say “No.”  We must say “No.”, carefully and with respect for the person.

Since the post started with one firebrand, let’s continue with another.  This video from Michael Voris can add a good perspective to the conversation, lest anyone fall into the trap of suggesting, even vaguely, that homosexuals are not welcome in the Church or that they have no right claim Catholic identity (if they are trying to live Christian lives with all that implies).

Other writers or speakers have presented the point Voris tries to make, but since some of his critics might not expect this from him – because they think they have him figured out, and not in a good way – let’s give a few minutes to one of his old videos.

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Pope Francis and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to Catholic League’s head: Pope Francis should expel Vatican’s ‘Gay Lobby’

  1. frjim4321 says:

    I like starting my Friday mornings with the comics and as always Bill Donohue is good for a laugh.

    Yes, Pope Francis will ask all the cardinals to present their gay ID cards so he will know who to fire. [Hmmmm… shall we send that idea in?]

    Sorry, Bill, Pope Francis is an amazing pope, but even his radar doesn’t go that close to the ground.

  2. JARay says:

    Although I have never read the Book “Goodbye Good Men” I have been aware of this sub-culture and so have many others in the Church. Only recently we have been told of this French priest who is a committed Freemason. What the Church needs, and needs badly, is a committed Episcopacy, fully committed to the Church and with a robust backbone who will not hesitate to call out dissenters, to excommunicate public, unrepentant, sinners, to implement Church sanctions and uphold the clear teachings of the Church. We need good, holy priests, but, perhaps more desperately, we need good, solid bishops.

    [We need holy lay people who become holy parents who try to raise holy children who may answer a vocation.]

  3. Those people should be EXPOSED ASAP. LORD have mercy.

  4. Marion Ancilla Mariae says:

    jim wrote: “I like starting my Friday mornings with the comics and as always Bill Donohue is good for a laugh.”

    Mr. Donohue has forcefully and laudably responded to issues as wide-ranging as Mapplethorpe’s “Piss Christ” exhibit being displayed in a New York museum, to attempts by pro-abortion forces to force Catholic physicians and hospitals to perform abortions, to attempts by gay rights activists to force Catholic Charities to adopt out children to couples living in sinful relationships.

    My take on these and most of the other circumstances that Mr. Donohue addresses, ranges from troubling to outrageous. That anyone would find either Mr. Donohue’s responses or the circumstances which prompt them remotely to be amusing, and actually professes to be a Catholic . . . how very sad.

  5. wolfeken says:

    Wait, so are we now acknowledging this exists? [Who is this “we”?]

    Just two days ago the Gold Star went to Dr. Peters for calling this “nuthin.” [That isn’t quite accurate. The nuthin’ was aimed at the whole report, which was mostly about his remarks concerning the work of religious and perhaps problems with the CDF, etc. The MSM made this into more of an issue about homosexuals. As are you, perhaps?]

  6. Massachusetts Catholic says:

    It isn’t just a problem at the Vatican. The same lobby can be found in any chancery in the U.S. to a greater or lesser extent. If you ask anyone who is “connected” in the archdiocese of Boston (and who is willing to talk), you can quickly get a list of names. I remember talking with an older priest, a middle-management type who was the beloved pastor of a large and thriving parish. I mentioned a local problem priest and his antics. The pastor told me the problem priest was on vacation with two of his buddies, who he (problem priest) called “gay partners.” I blurted out the names. (It wasn’t much of a leap, they were notorious.) The old pastor turned white — literally — and said, “Don’t quote me on that. They’ll destroy me.” I was surprised at the level of fear. And I figured the “they” must be pretty high up.

  7. Fr AJ says:

    frjim4321 does have a point, it seems like it would be extremely difficult to me to root these people out – how can one tell who is doing what in the shadows for sure? We need to pray for the Pope, he’s got quite a job taking this on.

  8. frjim4321 says:

    Marion, I have written here before that whereas some of Donohue’s causes may have some merit, his technique is ineffective and most likely brings more ridicule upon that church than he seeks to reduce.

  9. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:

    I like starting my Friday mornings with the comics and as always Bill Donohue is good for a laugh.

    I’m not a Bill Donohue fan.

    Yes, Pope Francis will ask all the cardinals to present their gay ID cards so he will know who to fire.

    It’s well known in the Vatican who the sodomites are, just as it was in seminaries some years ago.

    Sorry, Bill, Pope Francis is an amazing pope, but even his radar doesn’t go that close to the ground.

    He might indeed turn out to be “amazing”, but he hasn’t done anything yet to indicate that he is or will be

  10. Marion Ancilla Mariae says:

    “his technique is ineffective and most likely brings more ridicule upon that church than he seeks to reduce.

    Then it follows that whatever laughter he may elicit comes from the Church’s enemies, and not from quarters sympathetic to Her.

    Laughter is not quite the response I would hope to see from an ally when a fellow soldier attempts and falls in battle.

  11. Pingback: The Importance of Fatherhood - BigPulpit.com

  12. Basher says:

    Fr. Z wrote in red:

    “That isn’t quite accurate. The nuthin’ was aimed at the whole report, which was mostly about his remarks concerning the work of religious and perhaps problems with the CDF, etc. The MSM made this into more of an issue about homosexuals. As are you, perhaps?”

    Wait..what? Everyone on Earth was focused on the gay comment in the previous article, and Dr. Peters most definitely called that nuthin’. [Inter alia. But that is hardly the most interesting thing to those who are not just echoing the MSM.] Now, this blog is focused on the homosexual aspect of the article, too, and yet criticizing a commenter for being too focused on the homosexual aspect… [C’mon. Think it through. The more important issue in that report was NOT that there are homosexuals in the Vatican (…DUH!…) but that perhaps ultra-liberal dying religious can go merrily on their way without concern for what the CDF might think. That’s the far more important aspect of the nuthin’ reference.]

    My head is spinning. Is this what read Benedict through Francis feels like? [Perhaps you’ll figure it out.]

  13. Basher says:

    Sorry…”Francis through Benedict”.

    Which, I wager, is going to become increasingly difficult to do. Different men. Different styles, agendas…levels of scholarship.

  14. The Astronomer says:

    The ‘gay lobby,’ ‘Lavender Mafia,’ call it what you will has been entrenched for several decades within the Church. As someone who had to deal directly with homosexual clergy in both the Archdiocese of NY and the Archdiocese of Newark, NJ over the years, these individuals form a vicious, self-protective and semi-clandestine network rivaling organized crime in its tenacity to operate and survive. Cattiness and professional backstabbing is the least they will do; often violence and intimidation are the name of the game. Even here, on WDTPRS, there’s a willingness to speak of the issue itself, but we hesitate to name names. The immediate response is because someone will always come back with “how do you KNOW for certain???” as well as accusations of lacking in charity…etc.

    His Holiness has his own version of the Augean Stables to clean with this widespread Sodomite rot and filth; they will not go quietly. Remember. folks, that Lucifer has managed to infest the Holy See with practitioners of one of the sins that cries to Heaven for vengeance. We must keep Pope Francis in our prayers.

    St. Padre Pio, Pray for Us!

  15. StWinefride says:

    Father Z says: [We need holy lay people who become holy parents who try to raise holy children who may answer a vocation.]

    “PRAY THE LORD OF THE HARVEST TO SEND OUT LABOURERS!” by Pope Benedict XVI (Meeting with the Priests and Deacons in Freising, Germany, 14 September 2006).

    Pray the Lord of the harvest to send out labourers”. This means that the harvest is ready, but God wishes to enlist helpers to bring it into the storehouse. God needs them. He needs people to say: Yes, I am ready to become your harvest labourer; I am ready to offer help so that this harvest which is ripening in people’s hearts may truly be brought into the storehouses of eternity and become an enduring, divine communion of joy and love.

    “Pray the Lord of the harvest” also means that we cannot simply “produce” vocations; they must come from God. This is not like other professions, we cannot simply recruit people by using the right kind of publicity or the correct type of strategy. The call which comes from the heart of God must always find its way in to the heart of man. And yet, precisely so that it may reach into hearts, our cooperation is needed.

    To “pray the Lord of the harvest” means above all to ask Him for this, to stir His heart and say: “Please do this! Rouse labourers! Enkindle in them enthusiasm and joy for the Gospel! Make them understand that this is a treasure greater than any other, and that whoever has discovered it, must hand it on!”

    We stir the heart of God. But our prayer to God does not consist of words alone; the words must lead to action so that from our praying heart a spark of our joy in God and in the Gospel may arise, enkindling in the hearts of others a readiness to say “yes”. As people of prayer, filled with His light, we reach out to others and bring them into our prayer and into the presence of God, who will not fail to do His part. In this sense we must continue to pray the Lord of the harvest, to stir His heart, and together with God touch the hearts of others through our prayer. And he, according to His purpose, will bring to maturity their “yes”, their readiness to respond; the constancy, in other words, through all this world’s perplexity, through the heat of the day and the darkness of night, to persevere faithfully in His service. Hence they will know that their efforts, however arduous, are noble and worthwhile because they lead to what is essential, they ensure that people receive what they hope for: God’s light and God’s love.

    http://www.clerus.org/clerus/dati/2008-01/25-13/Adoration.pdf

  16. frjim4321 says:

    Personally I find it hateful and revolting to refer to our gay brothers and sisters as sodomites.

  17. Cosmos says:

    You don’t have to root out everyone to have a big impact. You can:

    (1) discipline and remove people once it becomes clear that they are abusing their authority; ie., remove the obvious problems.

    (2) admit/acknowledge that this is really a problem and that, as a result, teaching on this subject has to be very clear and direct and come from the top down in the short term. No tolerance for wishy-washy public teaching.

    (3) monitor and take seriously complaints from diocese and seminiaries of unfair treatment based on an unwillingness to bend to this agenda. It makes perfect sense that we take complaints of sexual abuse more seriously these days since now we know that it was a widespread and credible problem. Same goes for this issue. That doesn’t mean you have to treat everyone as guilty before things are substantiated.

  18. Bob B. says:

    It seems the problem must be attacked at different levels simultaneously.
    Look at Catholic education at all levels (teachers who don’t believe in the Magisterium and don’t teach what the Church has to say about homosexuality). Lavender Graduations and LGBT (or whatever it is) clubs, priests and college presidents who ignore of directly oppose Church teachings. Seminaries need to screen candidates better.
    Bishops appointed who aren’t afraid to dismiss priests.
    The laity will support these efforts, but they will need to be taken at the same time to be effective.

  19. AvantiBev says:

    Sorry Astronomer but it DOES matter what you call it. I am beyond sick and tired of the overuse of the word “mafia” for any and all criminal activity or moral failings. As if all you stranieri were skipping through daisy fields of innocence until I and my fellow paesani showed up to corrupt you!

    But having grown up – er – survived the Irish SW side parish where Grrrrrreeley served, I prefer to smile and call it “The Lavender I.R.A.”. I swear that parish and every other Sodom and Begorrah parish in SW Chi Town took up a second collection for them; their real boyos of Irish Repub Army, I mean.

    As a heterosexual actress I have a finely developed detection system that we actresses called “gaydar”. It kept us from wasting time honing in on an unavailable male. ;-) The Holy Father should hire a bunch of estrogen rich actresses to sweep the place with their gaydar.

    But really why is this being discussed NOW? Most any Catholic paying even scant attention have known these things went on in the seminaries for years.

  20. B16generation says:

    Let’s not forget that the group that initially reported Pope Francis as saying there is a “gay lobby” at the Vatican is now back-tracking on their statement (as reported right here on WDTPRS).

    No one can really know what the Pope actually said (except for the Pope) since it was a PRIVATE meeting.

    Let’s not go running with an unsubstantiated story from a left-leaning group about a private conversation. Lot’s of people would like to use this chance to smear the Catholic Church all over again.

  21. The Astronomer says:

    “frjim4321 says:
    14 June 2013 at 10:35 am

    Personally I find it hateful and revolting to refer to our gay brothers and sisters as sodomites.”

    Kindly look up the definition in Merriam Webster’s Dictionary. Perhaps you take issue with their official definitions as well, or just perhaps, do your sympathies here lie more with the line taken taken by the National Catholic Reporter (aka Fishwrap).

    And thank you for proving my point. Pointing out uncomfortable, provable truth immediately gets one labeled as ‘hateful.’ Next up, ladies and gents: “homophobic, bigoted…etc.”

  22. NBW says:

    We need the intercession of St. Peter Damian. His writings include the Book of Gomorrah (Liber Gomorrhianus) which I believe deals with homosexuals in the clergy.

  23. Marion Ancilla Mariae says:

    Personally I find it hateful and revolting to refer to our gay brothers and sisters as sodomites.”

    Personally I find it hateful and revolting for soi-disant Catholics to laugh at good men who step up to defend holy Mother Church, while others sit back on the sidelines, and . . . laugh at them.

    Just goes to show you, Jim.

    It takes all kinds, doesn’t it?

    Why don’t you just laugh about things that revolt you? You’re so apt to laughter, after all.

  24. Marion Ancilla Mariae says:

    The Astronomer wrote: “Even here, on WDTPRS, there’s a willingness to speak of the issue itself, but we hesitate to name names.”

    And that for two good reason: It is a serious sin to reveal the sins, faults and failings of another, (1) apart from a grave reason, such as to correct or arrest the wrong-doer, and (2) except to one who has it his or her power to correct or arrest the wrongdoer. The second condition does not obtain here on wdtprs.

    Second reason, Fr. Z., would need a good lawyer to respond to the civil or criminal case brought against him for libel, slander, etc., should names be publicly named. Unless we here are willing to pony up all kinds of dough to pay Fr. Z’s court costs, I suggest, no naming be done or advocated.

  25. robtbrown says:

    frjim4321 says:
    Personally I find it hateful and revolting to refer to our gay brothers and sisters as sodomites.

    You forgot to accuse me of being rigid. Maybe you were in a hurry or just having an off day.

    On the other hand, you do seem off to a good start in using liberal buzzwords that reduce the human brain to cream of wheat.

  26. The Astronomer says:

    Marion Ancilla Mariae says:
    14 June 2013 at 11:16 am

    The Astronomer wrote: “Even here, on WDTPRS, there’s a willingness to speak of the issue itself, but we hesitate to name names.”

    And that for two good reason: It is a serious sin to reveal the sins, faults and failings of another, (1) apart from a grave reason, such as to correct or arrest the wrong-doer, and (2) except to one who has it his or her power to correct or arrest the wrongdoer. The second condition does not obtain here on wdtprs.

    I thank you for your clarification/correction. Does this apply to senior prelates who’ve publicly announced, via traditional or social media, that they indulge in this activity? It seems a number of clergy that either post or are contributors to the Fishwrap are openly proud of their ‘practice.’

  27. cdet1997 says:

    Not to speak for frjim4321, but one could say that a sodomite is one who commits a sin of sexual deviance, whereas a homosexual merely has same sex attraction.

    There are homosexuals who are faithful Catholics and are celibate. They should not be called sodomites. If they remain chaste despite being urged to succumb to their inclinations by modern society, their reward in heaven will be glorious.

  28. Imrahil says:

    Language usage is a tyrant.

    One could say so, yes. But I don’t, frankly, see how the word “homosexual” in general language usage is taken for anyone but one who has by explicit decision, the sheer number of his acts, or the obvious language of his outward appearance decided to belong to the homosexual so-called “community”.

    Do you call a chaste man who feels SSA a homosexual? Do you call one who sometimes gives in to the temptation, if it really is giving in as to a temptation, a homosexual?

    I think I don’t.

  29. frjim4321 says:

    Irmahill, a person who is homosexually inclined is a person whose sexual preference is for members of the same sex as opposed to members of the opposite sex. The term homosexual does not relate to behavior, it related to sexual preference or inclination. Thus you can have a person who is described clinically as being homosexually inclined but is not sexually active. To use the term “homosexual” to relate only to those who act out sexually is to create your own ideological definition of the word. Certainly you are free to do that, but be advised that that is not the standard, normative definition of the word.

  30. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:

    Since I find myself in agreement with Fr. Jim so infrequently, in the rare occasions that I find us in agreement I find it only fair to acknowledge such. It may be a small point, but I’ll take it.

    Bill Donoghue seems to be telling the Pope not merely what to do, but how to do his job. This seems, politely, unseemly for a man who claims to be Catholic.

    Before someone throws any muck on the pile, I think I should make a distinction.

    When Father Zuhlsdorf asks (repeatedly) when Their Excellencies will apply Canon 915, he is asking a question, even if there is an implied course of action. Besides, as a priest, he can reasonably ask bishops how to enforce the Church’s law.

    For a layman to tell a priest how to do his job is unsupportable.

  31. VerbumJournal says:

    Love is I think an appropriate word here. Whilst one is concerned about anyone(group) promoting a lifestyle such as the one mentioned, it must be done with charity and love lest the trap be sprung upon us by the father of lies.

    Honesty, even brutal honesty, is only righteous if done with love. As Father Z points out in the update there must be a time to look at people and say “no.” But doing so with hatred or bitterness is not what Christ calls us to do.

    If there is some sort of lobby or group it must be dealt with to protect the faith for all, not just for those who feel others are beneath teem.

  32. VerbumJournal says:

    *them.

  33. Imrahil says:

    Rev’d dear @Fr Jim,

    thank you for the information. (I mean that seriously.)

    Only I wonder whether this is indeed the way the general usage of language (which can sometimes differ from the normative, as for instance in dictionaries) uses the word. Not least because I have the impression that outside the faithfully Catholic pale, the concept of an intentionally perpetually chaste homosexual is a thing not really thought relevant.

    As for me, I’m rather indifferent in the subject (hence you’re wrong about that “ideological” part), I was only tracking my feeling-for-language.

  34. Imrahil says:

    Dear @Chris Garton-Zavesky,

    I disagree on that. It is not forbidden to question the way a cleric does his job or to make suggestions, we are not, after all, clericalists; even less, I can see a difference between asking the sort of questions you mentioned and giving suggestions of action.

    Nevertheless, in this concrete instance, I agree. Mr Donohue should not have in this case issued this statement.

  35. Marion Ancilla Mariae says:

    I call both sodomites and homosexuals “people like my dearest baby brother who, until Jesus in His mercy, rescued him through the prayers and tears of our mother, had been caught in a web of sin and despair that constituted for him an anteroom of Hell, but was restored by Him to a life of grace. And then and now, and yet all the while, he was and is my dearest brother, my noblest brother, my most beloved brother, for whose redemption from sin and death, I am prostrate at the feet of the Lord in gratitude, forever and ever. Amen.

    That kind of homosexual.

  36. Marion Ancilla Mariae says:

    P.S. and if that kind of homosexual who is my baby brother should have the misfortune to fall again, my prayers and tears would stretch from here to eternity until he is restored, never giving up on him, never, never, because the love we as Christians have for each other believes all things, hopes for all things, endures all things.

    Love that never fails.

    That kind of homosexual.

  37. Marion Ancilla Mariae says:

    The Astronomer asks: “Does this apply to senior prelates who’ve publicly announced, via traditional or social media, that they indulge in this activity? It seems a number of clergy that either post or are contributors to the Fishwrap are openly proud of their ‘practice.”

    I’m only a layperson, not a priest or a trained theologian, so we have now officially reached the outer limits of any command I might have of this problem.

    I could point you to two Bible verses that might be of service, I hope. They are:

    “Immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be mentioned among you, as is fitting among holy ones” (Ephesians 5:3) [Unless, obviously, in a specific case, grave duty requires us to act]

    and

    “. . . whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” (Philippians 4:8)

  38. jhayes says:

    Associated Press notes that Francis took Archbishop Welby to lunch at the Vatican Guest House, where he lives, and avoided controversy in mentioning marriage.

    In his remarks to Welby, Francis said he hoped they could collaborate in promoting the sacredness of life “and the stability of families founded on marriage.” He noted that Welby had recently spoken out on the issue, a reference to his House of Lords speech.

    Significantly, though, Francis didn’t specify that marriage should be based on a union between a man and woman, which is how Benedict XVI and John Paul II routinely defined it in a way that made clear their opposition to same-sex marriage….

    After the visit the two delegations had lunch in the Vatican hotel where Francis lives. While Francis is known for his spartan style and habits, he ordered up a five-course, fish-based lunch for his guests: swordfish slices, pasta with prawns, tuna steak, ice cream, fruit and coffee.

    “He was very generous to me,” Welby quipped when asked how such a menu squared with Francis’ own simple temperament and the generally mediocre reviews given the hotel dining room.

    Read more here: http://www.modbee.com/2013/06/14/2762432/pope-wades-diplomatically-into.html#storylink=cpy

  39. jhayes says:

    Only I wonder whether this is indeed the way the general usage of language (which can sometimes differ from the normative, as for instance in dictionaries) uses the word. Not least because I have the impression that outside the faithfully Catholic pale, the concept of an intentionally perpetually chaste homosexual is a thing not really thought relevant.

    That is the correct usage in English. People who haven’t absorbed the Catechism’s distinction between attraction and activity may conflate the two but that is not correct. I wonder if the concept of an intentionally perpetually chaste person is any more relevant among heterosexuals than homosexuals

    I recall a visiting speaker at Boston College making the distinction by introducing himself as “an unpartnered gay Catholic priest.”

  40. DisturbedMary says:

    Personally I find it hateful and revolting to refer to our homosexuals as a group as gay. Most of them don’t even seem happy.

  41. “There are homosexuals who are faithful Catholics and are celibate.+

    Indeed, one could not otherwise call them faithful. But can anyone tell me how–if a faithful Catholic is continent–especially in the case of a priest … How does the question of whether he is homosexual or heterosexual in his inclinations (if any) ever arise if he is not sexually active?

  42. acardnal says:

    The Holy See has spoken on the the matter of homosexuals in the clergy in a 2005 Instruction from the Congregation for Catholic Education.

    Not only those men who engage in homosexual behavior but even those with tendencies (an orientation) or who support the gay culture are NOT to be ordained; this would include those who believe they could live a celibate lifestyle.

    “In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called “gay culture”[10]. ”

    http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

  43. jhayes says:

    If I remember correctly from several months ago, the issue of the existence of gay priests within the curia was part of what was leaked from the Vatileaks Report, where it was presented as an explanation of how some priests had been blackmailed to approve actions or release information in order to avoid publicity about their sexual activity.

    It can hardly be news to anyone that there are priests who have same-sex attraction and that some act on it. I doubt that anyone at he Vatican thinks that the issue is to identify and remove all homosexual priests from the Curia. However, priests who are susceptible to blackmail need to be removed from positions where they could harm the Church in order to avoid disclosure of their personal activities.

  44. Woodlawn says:

    Speaking of Michael Voris, he’ll be in West Virginia in September for a conference. See here:
    http://knightsofcolumbuslatinmass.blogspot.com/

  45. Jeannie_C says:

    I was hoping someone would comment on the content of Michael Voris’ video because the content did not match my experience with gay men. I’ve worked with three actively homosexual professionals, one had been in a committed relationship for 16 years, another in serially monogamous relationships, and the third who classified himself as single and dating. These men were exceptionally compassionate, all three identified as Catholic, though not practicing. They did not agonize over their orientation and lifestyle, and their only complaint was the negative reactions of some, not all, family members. They avoided discussion of the topic with those who overtly expressed their opinions of them. I’m not saying I approve of this lifestyle, but can’t agree they carried it as a burden or cross. No doubt some will, perhaps these three men were exceptions to the rule, but they were the only active homosexuals I’ve interacted with on a daily/yearly basis. and did not fit the depiction of the video.

  46. Jeannie_C says:

    If I might ask another question – as jhayes says, it is unlikely the goal is to remove all homosexual priests from the Curia, rather those who are susceptible to blackmail and therefore cause harm to the Church – is this not the same as heterosexual priests, those who keep mistresses on the side, live as though married and father children? Why the emphasis on homosexuality when both groups are equally guilty of breaking their vows and committing adultery?

  47. robtbrown says:

    The case of those trying to be celibate is unique because it is the complete suppression of certain emotions connected to the sexual appetite. It is not unusual for a celibate to feel something akin to SSA, but that is not the same as homosexual inclination.

  48. acardnal says:

    Jeannie C wrote, “Why the emphasis on homosexuality when both groups are equally guilty of breaking their vows and committing adultery?”

    Perhaps because the Church teaches that homosexual acts are a “grave depravity” and “intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. CCC #2357 Heterosexual acts are not considered so.

  49. Imrahil says:

    Dear @jhayes,

    I meant not to conflate attraction with activity, but wonder whether “homosexuality” as commonly understood – dictionaries are circumstantial evidence but not mathematical proof – means “attraction” or “attraction acted upon”.

    In other words, whether a homosexual presented the Church’s and natural doctrine beginning with the remark “homosexuality is no sin” will not, or will, feel fooled around. (For if you say “attraction”, he will not, even though he might disagree in the end.)

  50. Marion Ancilla Mariae says:

    Jeannie C. wrote: “I’ve worked with three actively homosexual professionals, one had been in a committed relationship for 16 years, another in serially monogamous relationships, and the third who classified himself as single and dating . . . They did not agonize over their orientation and lifestyle, and their only complaint was the negative reactions of some, not all, family members. . . I’m not saying I approve of this lifestyle, but can’t agree they carried it as a burden or cross. “

    Jeannie, you describe these men as “actively homosexual,” meaning that they are involved in a way of life that includes gravely sinful sexual activity. You note that “they did not agonize over their orientation and lifestyle,” but I hope you will forgive if I reserve judgment about your – or anyone’s – ability to know for certain whether another human being, even one with whom we live on exceptionally intimate terms, agonizes about anything. The inner landscape of another is something profoundly difficult for any of us to explore and then pronounce that we know.

    A number of persons I have known over the years have seemed to lead happy, well-adjusted lives enjoying everything life could possibly offer. Of a sudden, each one of these persons took their own lives, to the shock and bewilderment of everyone, even those closest to them. We were gob-smacked; no one saw the tragic moment coming.

    You think you know what is going on inside someone, and then you find you don’t. Unless they choose to share the most intimate details of their inner lives with you, which is not typical behavior among work colleagues, unless they become exceptionally close.

    Voris was speaking about same-sex attracted persons who are resolved to live chastely, that is without same-sex sexual relationships, or even intimate relationships with persons to whom they feel attracted, but with whom they cannot contract the Sacrament of Marriage. What this amounts to, Voris stated, is the prospect of living in perpetual solitude. And for many of us – heterosexual or homosexual – even the prospect of such unending solitude fills us with dread and despair. It was that dreadful prospect which Voris was addressing.

    I realize that I personally haven’t done enough on behalf of persons in my parish with same-sex attraction, who desire to avoid offending God by sinning, who desire instead to lead lives of continence. In what ways can married fellow parishoners work to see to it that perpetually continent, single men and women in our parishes need not feel “alone”?

  51. jhayes says:

    The case of those trying to be celibate is unique because it is the complete suppression of certain emotions connected to the sexual appetite. It is not unusual for a celibate to feel something akin to SSA, but that is not the same as homosexual inclination.

    Here’s part of a review of a book on celibacy for priests. It points out the difference between the ninteenth century idea of the need for a priest to have “a heart of bronze” and more recent views that successful celibacy requires close relationships with other people.

    Jesuit Fr. Gerdenio “Sonny” Manuel has written an important book for current and next-generation priests facing the challenges of ministerial effectiveness and personal well-being as celibates. His book is a clear sign of how far we have come from the days when newly ordained priests chose for their ordination cards the famous 19th-century prayer of French priest and orator Jean-Baptiste Henri Lacordaire that spoke of priests as otherworldly and heroic men with “a heart of bronze.”

    A licensed psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of San Francisco, Manuel’s formula for successfully “living celibacy” is to embrace rather than escape the psychosexual dimensions of a life that forgoes genital sex and an exclusive intimate partnership for the sake of service to the church. He affirms the obvious: that the sacrifices entailed also bring multiple benefits, not the least of which is the freedom to cultivate a wide circle of professional and personal relationships and to travel light, serving whenever and wherever needed without the obligations of marriage and family.

    This is not to say that living celibacy is easy, especially as a priest goes through midlife, when the uncertainties of aging and the crisis of realizing one’s limits hit the panic button.

    Manuel proposes a lifelong approach to living celibacy in the form of five “healthy pathways for priests.” They are:

    Live close to God and one’s deepest desires;
    Develop relationships and communities of support;
    Ask for love, nurture others, and negotiate separation;
    Cope with stress and recognize destructive patterns of behavior;
    Celebrate the holy.

    Behind each of these summary prescriptions are rich stores of clinical data, analysis and case studies from the social sciences, joined to the deep perspectives of Catholic theology and spirituality. Living Celibacy is both informative and inspiring, making it a valuable tool for screening candidates, for those in formation programs and for newly ordained priests. Veteran priests can benefit from the basic principles the author presents. Each chapter ends with reflection questions for personal or group use.

    Manuel affirms what Dominican Fr. Don Goergen risked censure to say in his now classic 1975 book The Sexual Celibate — that “friendship is not detrimental but central to celibate living, that celibate persons are also sexual persons, and that celibate life is a profound and rewarding way of living,” as Goergen wrote. Moving beyond a time when “particular friendships” were forbidden and contact between priests and women was discouraged, Manuel assumes that today’s priests can live chastely and effectively in the real world when grounded in community and in the charism given to them to build up the church.

    http://ncronline.org/books/2013/05/jesuit-s-book-offers-rich-insights-celibacy

  52. jhayes says:

    acardnal, heterosexuals and homosexuals are both wrongdoers in Paul’s list in 1 Cor 6:9-10

    Do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God.

  53. frjim4321 says:

    The case of those trying to be celibate is unique because it is the complete suppression of certain emotions connected to the sexual appetite. It is not unusual for a celibate to feel something akin to SSA, but that is not the same as homosexual inclination.

    Sorry, so much here I could not find where the quote originated in the string.

    I really don’t think suppression is recommended by most spiritual directors with respect to the integration of sexual feelings and appetites.

    Futher, “SSA” in an inept expression that is not regarded as valid in any professional literature. Nevertheless, it seems to be a warped way of referring to and clumsy attempt at rebranding that which is, specifically, a homosexual inclination.

    I believe it is safe to say that we have all seen the tragic results of the suppression of sexual inclinations.

    It could be extremely dangerous to convince a gay seminarian that the seminarian is not homosexually inclined, but rather suffering from “SSA,” which has no substantiation in the DSM-5.

    My very fine, hardworking and excellent classmate who has been jammed up and unable to serve for about 10 years is in that position because of faulty spiritual direction as suggested here.

  54. acardnal says:

    jhayes wrote, “acardnal, heterosexuals and homosexuals are both wrongdoers in Paul’s list in 1 Cor 6:9-10″

    Yes, they are wrongdoesr. But there are degrees of holiness and degrees of sinfulness; even among those listed as mortal sins, some are more grave than others. To my knowledge, there are only two mortal sins mentioned in the CCC which are described with the modifiers “intrinsic evil” or “intrinsic disorder” and they are abortion and homosexual behavior.

    The more holy a person becomes in this life, the greater his degree of glory in heaven. The same principle applies to evildoers in hell.

  55. jhayes says:

    among those listed as mortal sins, some are more grave than others

    I don’t think that’s so objectively. Subjectively, the person’s culpability depends on a lot of things. As 2352 says:

    ” To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.”

    “Intrinsic evil” is a technical term meaning that the act is always sinful. It is not a measure of seriousness.

  56. jhayes says:

    I really don’t think suppression is recommended by most spiritual directors with respect to the integration of sexual feelings and appetites.

    Agreed. A friend said that the approach outlined in the book review I posted above matched up with the formation given to single men in his permanent deacon program.

  57. Bill Foley says:

    to frjim4321,

    SSA should be SSAD (same-sex-attraction disorder) because the attraction is unnatural.

    The following is clear evidence that the Holy See does not want men with same-sex-attraction-disorder ordained. If a transitory problem must be clearly overcome for at least three years before ordination to the diaconate, then a deep-seated problem would logically prohibit ordination.

    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

    Congregation for Catholic Education
    Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem – for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.
    The Supreme Pontiff, Benedict XVI, on 31 August, 2005, approved this present Instruction and ordered its publication.
    Rome, 4 November, 2005, Memoria of St. Charles Borromeo, Patron of Seminaries.

    Benedict XVI: Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times.
    A Conversation with Peter Seewald. 2010.

    Pages 152-153: “Homosexuality is incompatible with the priestly vocation. Otherwise, celibacy itself would lose its meaning as a renunciation. It would be extremely dangerous if celibacy became a sort of pretext for bringing people into the priesthood who didn’t want to get married anyway. For, in the end, their attitude toward man and woman is somehow distorted, off center, and, in any case, is not within the direction of creation of which we have spoken. The Congregation for Education issued a decision a few years ago to the effect that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being. The selection of candidates to the priesthood must therefore be very careful. The greatest attention is needed here in order to prevent the intrusion of this kind of ambiguity where the celibacy of priests would practically end up being identified with the tendency to homosexuality.”

  58. acardnal says:

    acardnal said, “among those listed as mortal sins, some are more grave than others.”

    jhayes wrote, “I don’t think that’s so objectively. Subjectively, the person’s culpability depends on a lot of things. “

    There are most definitely degrees of seriousness regarding sin.

    Objectively the degree of the gravity of a sin – including mortal sin – has always existed. It is a long standing teaching of the Church. Subjectively, the degree of culpability of the sinner is due to variables. One should remember that abortion is so grave a mortal sin in the mind of the Church that automatic excommunication is attached to it! This does not apply to fornication or adultery which are mortal sins,too, objectively, but they are not as grave as abortion or homosexual behavior.

    CCC 1854. “Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, [Cf. 1 Jn 5:16-17.] became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.”

    “To commit sin is unlawful on account of some inordinateness therein: wherefore those which contain a greater inordinateness are more unlawful, and consequently graver sins.” – St. Thomas Aquinas (“Summa Theologica” )

    1 John 5:16, If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.

    John 19:11, Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.”

    “If we entreat for lesser sins we are granted pardon, but for greater sins, it is difficult to obtain our request. There is a great difference between one sin and another.” St. Jerome, ” Against Jovinian” c. 393 A.D.

  59. acardnal says:

    For clarification, in my above comments I am referring to the objective matter of the sin, i.e. adultery, fornication, abortion, and homosexual behavior. They are the objective grave matter pertaining to the conditions necessary for mortal sin. To make a sin mortal three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will. jhayes raised the issue of culpability not matter. Culpability pertains to the two subjective points that determine if a person has committed a mortal sin (2) The sinner must be mindful of the serious wrong; (3) The sinner must fully consent to it. But that is NOT what I was talking about. I was talking about the matter. And the matter of abortion and homosexual behavior are much graver sins by degree than adultery and fornication.

  60. Norah says:

    “Moving beyond a time when “particular friendships” were forbidden and contact between priests and women was discouraged.”

    It makes sense to me that priests and religious were discouraged from having particular friendships – a close intimate friendship – instead of general friendships and it also seems logical that as a married man should not seek out a personal as opposed to a professional contact with a female work colleague he finds sexually attractive so a priest should not seek out a personal contact with a woman he finds sexually attractive.

  61. Raymond says:

    Not name names???

    So, we have to wait until their cover is blown by the public airing of their misdeeds and only then can we name them? Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee; Hermann Groer of Vienna; Marcial Maciel of the Legionnaires of Christ. Anyone else whom I’ve missed?

  62. Jeannie_C says:

    Marion Ancilla Mariae, you raise some very good points concerning our understanding or lack thereof of other people’s innermost feelings. I wouldn’t say I was any closer to those men than I was with other co-workers. My impressions were based upon conversations and comments exchanged with them, day to day reliance on each others performance in order to do our work. Amongst amicable and well matched staff there does develop a certain closeness, but ours not outside of the work day. I completely missed the qualifications you pointed out about the video, so appreciate your clarification.

    When I was 14 our family moved to a new neighborhood where we lived next door to a true hermaphrodite. “Michel” had sex reassignment surgery, but “Michelle” was no happier afterwards and committed suicide three years later. It was a tragedy as she was much loved by all, and was a wonderful, caring individual. Obviously sexual orientation difficulties cause great unhappiness. Anyway, thank you for your reply.

  63. frjim4321 says:

    Jeannie, maybe I am missing something here because I am sure you know that gender identification and sexual orientation are two very different issues. Also, there is much we don’t know about the tragic situation you report. Was the subject and adult who had reassignment surgery after many years of competent therapy, or was the surgery chosen by parents when the child was younger?

    I don’t know the incidence of transgender persons; I suspect it is rare compared to the incidence of homosexuality. I have come across two persons in two different parishes who were transgender; one who I believe was physically 100% male but by early adulthood reassigned as female through years of therapy and then surgery. Another was a very young person who was born with undifferentiated genitalia. The parents had to make a decision one way or the other for corrective surgery. It was agonizing for them.

    The many issues associated with transgenderism are very complicated and fraught with great suffering for those who are working through them.

    Raymond, Maciel seems to have been bisexual and not homosexual; but it’s hard to say, since as we know both heterosexuals and homosexuals abuse individuals of either sex.

  64. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    I am not sure it is part of Imrahil’s point, but the neo-Latinism ‘homosexual’ is, so far as I can see, used in different ways in different modern Indo-European languages, and in different ‘registers’ of those languages.

    For example, there are Germanic languages in which ‘homo’ is used in a way ‘gay’ is used in English, with distinct inclusion (or at least no distiinct exclusion) of ‘activity’ or ‘practice’.

    It would be interesting – and perhaps helpful – to see a table comparing the words used in Catechism translations in different languages.

    And on this very international blog, perhaps commenters could sketch their various ‘native-lnaguage’ usages.

    It is also important to note the concerted attempts by some in various lands – attempts not only ideological but practical in terms of making policies and laws – to collapse any distinction, making it (legally) impossible to object to ‘activity’ or ‘practice’.

  65. Venerator Sti Lot says:

    With respect to Marion Ancilla Mariae and Jeannie_C’s discussion of the ‘inner landscape’ of others, I have encountered posts by Robert Oscar Lopez (in various fora online) speaking from, and of, his ‘inner landscape’, which might be worth consulting.

  66. StWinefride says:

    Robtbrown, you say: The case of those trying to be celibate is unique because it is the complete suppression of certain emotions connected to the sexual appetite.

    Your use of the word “suppression” had me reach for a second hand book, bought last year for my son, called “The Sixth Commandment: Notes on Self-Control Especially for Young Men by C.C. Martindale (The Manresa Press, London 1925)”. From pp 31-32:

    “…It is very important indeed to see clearly, here, the difference between suppression and self-control. I must not allow anyone to suggest to me that by trying to live chaste I am trampling out my instincts, trying to crush human nature out of myself. I cannot do that, to start with; nor does God, who made me and my nature, wish me to. Unintelligent, tyrannical denial of my instincts does do me harm; it exasperates the nerves, and I probably break out in another way. Take a sailor, who wants to get on shore and find a woman, and who is forcibly prevented, by spraining his ankle. He is being suppressed, and very likely his nerves get desperate, and it will be the ship’s boy who suffers.

    But the man who for a clearly seen reason freely governs himself, is not trampling on a good thing in himself, but gladly subordinating it to a better thing that he wants more, just as a man will freely and easily abstain from a heavy meal before a football match in which he wants to shine, however hearty be his appetite. He would call anyone a fool who said: “You are cruelly trampling on your instinct for beef and beer”. I don’t deny that there are moments when a man will need to do himself some violence; but I am speaking of the normal man at normal times, and saying that the policy of self-indulgence is a bad one, and that the generalization that self-control does harm, is a lie.

  67. robtbrown says:

    jhayes says:
    among those listed as mortal sins, some are more grave than others

    I don’t think that’s so objectively. Subjectively, the person’s culpability depends on a lot of things. As 2352 says:

    ” To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.”

    You have it backwards. Gravity of the act is separate from culpability. An act might be grave but with no or mitigated culpability. Antecedent passion always mitigates culpability. Also invincible ignorance. For example, someone might flip a light switch without knowing that it triggers a mechanism that destroys the home of the next door neighbors.

    “Intrinsic evil” is a technical term meaning that the act is always sinful. It is not a measure of seriousness.

    Actually, it is a measure. An act may be good in genus but not in its species, e.g., heterosexual sex is good (genus), but heterosexual sex between non married partners is evil (species), but more evil if one of the partners is married.

    Others acts are evil in genus and can never be good in species, e.g., homosexual sex. Thus, it is much more serious.

    I’ll respond to your and FrJim’s other comments later. Right now, I have to run some errands.

  68. StJude says:

    Good video by Michael Voris… as usual.

  69. MaryofSharon says:

    Vocabulary matters… A LOT. I’d like to look at how the Church uses words in relation to homosexuality.

    Fr. Jim: ” ‘ SSA’ ” in an inept expression that is not regarded as valid in any professional literature. Nevertheless, it seems to be a warped way of referring to and clumsy attempt at rebranding that which is, specifically, a homosexual inclination….It could be extremely dangerous to convince a gay seminarian that the seminarian is not homosexually inclined, but rather suffering from ‘SSA,’ which has no substantiation in the DSM-5.”

    It is imprudent for us as Catholics (or as rational human beings, for that matter) to look to the Ameriecan Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual, DSM-5, for reliable guidance on the matter of sexuality. The mental health professions, under considerable pressure from homosexual activists, have dismissed the notion of being attracted to the same sex as problematic and have redefined it as another variant of normal. The church rightly assesses (as does any objective person who can step out of the oppressively strong cultural tide and let go of a misdirected and counterproductive compassion) that being sexually attracted to the same sex is an intrinsic disorder, contrary to the very nature of the body, analogous, perhaps, to having an appetite to eat things that are not food.

    The distinction between “same-sex attraction” and “homosexual inclination” is subtle, but significant. A “same-sex attraction” can be isolated and transitory, or it may be persistent. A “homosexual inclination” suggests a higher degree of fixedness. Finally, calling someone “a homosexual” or “gay” implies that it is part of their identity, “who they are”. As is the case with many mental and physical ailments, in the matter of same-sex attraction, for some it is merely a passing thought or a single experimentation, for some it is a phase through which they are able to pass through, perhaps with professional and spiritual counsel, and for others it is persistent throughout life.

    Fr. Jim: “Personally I find it hateful and revolting to refer to our gay brothers and sisters as sodomites.”

    It is significant to note that in her writings, the Church never uses the word “gay” as does Fr. Jim. “Gay” suggests an embrace of the mainstream social and political dimensions of homosexuality that oppose the Church’s understanding of maleness, femaleness, and sexuality. Furthermore, the Church “refuses to consider the person as a ‘heterosexual’ or a ‘homosexual’ and insists that every person has a fundamental identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life” (CDF 1986). Each person is called to accept his sexual identity as male or female (CCC 2333); those are the only options.

    Regarding the use of the word “sodomite”, even though scripture does use the word, the Church doesn’t in Her writings about those with same-sex attraction. The word “hateful” is ascribed ad nauseam to virtually anything remotely critical, so, Fr. Jim, I think you are overstating your case by saying that those who use the word “sodomite” are hateful. Still, I would agree that the use of this word is unnecessary, and suggests an insensitivity toward who struggle with same-sex attraction. It is a little more cumbersome, but we can be both accurate and sensitive by matter-of-factly saying “persons who engage in homosexual activity”, thus making it clear we are not talking about those who are striving to live chastely with the burden of a homosexual inclination.

    I’m surprised no one has mentioned the fine work of Fr. John Harvey and the apostolate of Courage, a shining beacon in the darkness, which serves the very people of whom Michael Voris is speaking. There is a thorough discussion on Catholic Language Regarding Homosexuality at: http://www.couragerc.net/Catholic_Language.html.

    Particularly relevant to this conversation are the words of faithful Catholics living chastely with same-sex attraction. Here are two fine articles by such men:

    “I’m Not Gay, I’m David”:
    http://www.cuf.org/2011/01/i-am-not-gay-i-am-david/

    “Why I Don’t Call Myself a Gay Christian”:
    http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2012/07/why-i-donrsquot-call-myself-a-gay-christian-1

    And finally an insightful article “A Label That Sticks:
    “http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/01/a-label-that-sticks-1

  70. JabbaPapa says:

    Just one quick linguistic note, concerning the new combox-free thread — I’ll respect your desire for no discussion of its contents, Father.

    Although increasingly used in a more Anglo-Saxon political sense, the term “lobby” has a decidedly more negative and at times conspiratorial flavor to it in Italian. We otherwise use “gruppi di pressione” [pressure groups] o “gruppi di interesse” [interest groups] when referred to organized and official entities. Another negative term would be “poteri forti” [like “powerful forces”]. In short, it means sinister people who maneuver in the dark and who have leverage enough to make things happen or to prevent them from happening.

    The same sense of “lobby” is normal in French — but also in British English.

    It is American English (only) that has the “neutral” political sense as the primary definition of the word.

    Oh, and just to try and pick up some extra points for my hair-splitter scouts badge, you confused connotation with denotation — the denotation of the word “lobby” in the European use is as Roman Fabrizio describes. Whereas its denotation in American English is that of the “neutral” political sense.

    The word “lobby” can be used in American English in this European sense, in fact this is exactly what you’re trying to show, but this would be a connotation in a particular usage, not the denotation as such of the word in your normal English usage (although it would be in my own).

  71. jhayes says:

    acardnal wrote “Objectively the degree of the gravity of a sin – including mortal sin – has always existed”

    I ‘m sorry if I confused anyone about that. Thomas Aquinas developed a taxonomy of mortal sins ranking them by their gravity. Within the category of Lust, the list ran from Bestiality (most grave) to Masturbation (less grave) to Fornication (least grave).

    However, they were still all mortal sins that could separate you from God if you met the other requirements of mortal sin in performing them.

  72. jhayes says:

    Although the church doesn’t deem homosexuality paired with chastity to be sinful, the Vatican decreed in 2005 that men with “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” shouldn’t be ordained as priests.

    AND yet many such men have been ordained. The Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit and an editor at large at the Catholic magazine America, told me that he’s seen thoughtful though not scientifically rigorous estimates that anywhere from 25 to 50 percent of Catholic priests are gay. His own best guess is 30 percent. That’s thousands and thousands of gay priests, some of whom must indeed be in the “deep-seated” end of the tendency pool.

    Martin believes that the vast majority of gay priests aren’t sexually active. But some are, and Rome is certainly one of the many theaters where the conflict between the church’s ethereal ideals and the real world play out.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/bruni-the-popes-gay-panic.html

  73. acardnal says:

    There is no doubt to thoughtful Catholics that there are a number of gay priests. Unfortunately, that fact has been a contributing factor to the Church’s troubles with regard to teaching and living the faith and morals espoused by the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ, our Lord. The Church needs more real, masculine, heterosexual priests who live a pure, faithful, and chaste life.

    Quoting from the 2005 Vatican document referenced by jhayes and myself at the 2:34 pm, 14 June entry above, the Church does not need men who have tendencies “which are . . .objectively disordered” . . . ” or support the so-called ‘gay culture'” in the priesthood. Period!

    I suggest a rereading of Father Z’s post on this subject wherein he explains his personal experiences with this horrific subject: http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/06/what-is-lobby-all-about-in-the-vatican-gay-lobby-chatter-going-on/

  74. Supertradmum says:

    When I was in college doing a theology degree, I was the only girl in a class of seminarians. Sure, it sounds dumb, but many would not be bothered by a then cute girl because seven out of the twenty or so were active homosexuals. Some of those sems became priests, some may have become bishops, none that I know of became cardinals.

    But, this is not a new problem and the same pattern has been in the Church for the past 40 years.

    The problem has to be dealt with, but it would take more than a committee of 8 to do so. However, this is a start, and we should be glad the Church at large is finally being realistic and admitting the problem for what it is-huge. That we can actually talk and write about this is a relief to many of us who tried to bring light into this situation but were stopped “from going public.”

    Praise God for light, and let us pray that there is a purge.

  75. Kathleen10 says:

    Nothing like a little conversation on homosexuality to bare the fangs.
    Bill Donaghue is a great man. A courageous man, an undeniably intelligent man. A man who has been fighting the good fight for many a year, and while he is often humorous, I would never find his actions humorous. He has been and is, on the front lines of taking the battle to the perpetrators, as it were. He defends Jesus, His Mother, and the Catholic Church from vulgar and reprehensible assaults. He rightly recognizes the threat of continuing on with an active homosexual presence in our church, and is making an unusual statement about it. Pope Francis knows how to take that advice or leave it, but, that statement was probably not just for Pope Francis, but also to send the message to Catholics and everyone else, that this cannot be tolerated any longer and now is as good a time as any. I agree with him 100%. We have all seen what active homosexuality has done to our church. How many boys and young men have to suffer before people “stop laughing”. A boy molested suffers for a lifetime, I find nothing entertaining about that.
    The threat from homosexuality is amazing in scope. This is culture-altering stuff going on, and people are falling victim left and right. Children are being taught by easily led secular parents, and even Catholics, that now homosexual unions are considered right and good! Only evil and confusion can result. This is in every way a full-on battle! We won’t win it if we are so worried about offending we counterbalance every statement with assurances of love. Love is not facilitating anyone to fall into a lifestyle that includes evil practices that are just plain filthy and which lead to separation from God. It’s not “light fare” but for many, even a minimal instruction on homosexual practices might go a long way toward demonstrating how sick those practices are, and how disordered the lifestyle really is. Most people have no idea of the reality. The real con artists try to put lipstick on that pig and try to convince others that it is about an elderly couple that just “love each other”. And who are you to……you get the idea.
    We are the victims of a brilliant word campaign. Gay rights champions know what they’re doing! They have all of us convinced that to disagree is a virtual “hate crime” and then, let the bullying begin. Look at the confusion! To say we disagree with homosexuality and need to rid the church of it results every time in a flurry of “love assurances”, as if, we must assure others we really do “love” the homosexuals. Yes, yes, I “love them” in the sense they are like me, children of God, but I don’t love them when they molest children, stealing their innocence, act in a vulgar and gross manner, then tell me I have to accept it and cheer for it. I don’t love them when they infiltrate the church and use it as their personal YMCA, and good men are denied the priesthood they were called for because they could not stand up to the bullying they received in “seminary”. It is extraordinarily important we root these guys out. I mean, out. The exception being the celibate men, but not in positions of authority at the Vatican. I mean, we need to reduce our misplaced compassion and put our compassion where it belongs. There is a great deal of misplaced compassion in our culture today. It confuses us, boggles our minds, but we need to strive for wisdom and clarity on these issues. We have a right to stay involved on this and to know what is going on. This is not something the laity can wonder about forever. Personally I know it takes a toll.
    Someone has to take a stand and make changes and then inform the laity so we can know the status of our church. I hope with all my heart that person is Pope Francis. He mentioned it, so that makes me hopeful.

  76. robtbrown says:

    Sorry for the delay. Problems here with two routers that have (or at least are supposed to have) a master-slave relationship.

    1. I am familiar with the Goergen book (and heard him speak years ago) as well as Paul Conner’s reply to it (Celibate Love).

    2. I am not familiar with the work of the Jesuit, but the last person I would ever listen to about friendship is a Jesuit. Jesuit training is oriented toward strengthening the individual and discouraging close relationships.

    3. Further, there is no such thing as a wide circle of close personal friends—although in any such group there will likely be a few who are closer than others. I am reminded that in the early 80’s someone I knew from tennis called to invite me to a party, saying “Every year we invite 500 of our closest friends . . . “

    4. IMHO, the diocesan seminary emphasis on community is self-destructive (and this includes communal prayer, which almost certainly will not be a part of the life of a diocesan priest). Most US diocesan priests either live alone or with another priest who is not a friend—there is no real friendship in a rectory. That’s why I have said that a man must be trained to be celibate, and that excludes PF’s. It doesn’t make much sense for someone in formation to depend on an emotional relationship because it won’t exist after ordination. The simple truth is that a priest is usually going to be isolated emotionally.

    That’s why I don’t think that the cause of sexual scandals was emotional suppression during formation. Rather, I think it was the opposite—that the person didn’t acquire a certain emotional independence from loving the solitude available involved in priestly life. The consequent post ordination loneliness created vulnerabilities. The old saying is the monk must learn to love his cell. Certainly, seminarians are not monks, but they must learn to love being alone in their rooms—and afterwards in a rectory.

    Any priest or sister who thinks that there is an opportunity for intimacy in sacerdotal or religious life doesn’t understand what intimacy is.

    5. I intentionally used SSA because it is ambiguous, that it may be interpreted as sexual attraction but also may not.

    6. I have said before that I have friends of both sexes. I assume that in some way I am attracted to them, but that doesn’t mean it’s sexual. I am not sexually attracted to any of the men. I am sexually attracted to only a few of the women—and that sexual attraction is not proportionate to how close the friendship is.

    And this arrives at our disagreement: I do not think that sexual attraction is intrinsic to every friendship.

    7. So then what indicates sexual attraction? IMHO, it is that which includes desires for physical intimacy. In fact, I have often told women who always want to hug: Put Diane Lane or Ashley Judd here, and I’ll show you some hugging.

    And so if a guy watches the Bruce Springsteen video of Dancing in the Dark, and likes the idea of dancing with Bruce rather than Courtney Cox . . . Houston, we have a problem.

    8. Theologically, I realize the Church is trying to move from the Counter Reformation’s highly individual approach to the spiritual life to one more Ecclesial. Unfortunately, “Ecclesial” has been misunderstood as “Communal”, which places emphasis on persons physically present. I have known priests in Rome who would not celebrate mass by themselves. Concelebration or nothing–they had a a sense of the Communal that all but excluded the Ecclesial. And a few years ago, visiting a relative in Texas, I drove in vain to a nearby large suburban parish for a weekday mass. When I inquired why there was none, I was told the priest doesn’t celebrate mass if no one comes.

    What he and those others didn’t understand was that if a priest says mass with no one else present, he is not alone–it is still an ecclesial act because of the Mystical Body of Christ.

    9. Fr Z has related more than once a priest who wrote to say how different the experience was in celebrating according to the 1962 Missal. Obviously, not every priest is going to opt for that, but I think it would help priests immensely if after ordination they would say mass privately for at least one semester. No concelebration.

    10. IMHO, the problem is that the transcendental aspect of priestly and religious life has been suppressed by the vernacularization of the Church. Anyone who spends a few days at Clear Creek Abbey won’t see monks concerned about confronting themselves with their own sexuality.