A conflicted Fishwrap v. Francis on homosexuals in seminary and priesthood

It took a while.  They probably needed to get the ringing in their ears to stop after being gobsmacked.

The National Sodomitical Reporter (aka Fishwrap) hardly loses any opportunity to defend that which is contrary to nature.

However, Fishwrap is also mired in the incontinent papalotry which has seized the Left.

So, Francis states clearly that homosexuals are not to be admitted to the priesthood.  What on earth are they to do?!?

In this case, their allegiance to sodomy has trumped their other loyalties.

Case in point at Fishwrap, the meanderings of their lesbian authoress Jamie Manson, wholly committed to the cause, to the point that she takes it to Francis.

So, what are ‘deep-seated homosexual tendencies’ anyway?

The pope who once famously said about gay priests, “Who am I to judge?”, is judging again.

In a newly published, book-length interview, Pope Francis has reasserted his worries about the presence of gay men in the clergy and of gays and lesbians in consecrated life.

His statement is a response to this question, posed by the interviewer, Claretian Fr. Fernando Prado: “It is not a secret that in consecrated life and in the clergy there are also people with homosexual tendencies. What can you say about that?”

Francis offers a response that is rather meandering, and even muddled in some parts. He claims that homosexuality is “fashionable” in some societies and that this “mentality also influences the life of the Church.”

[…]

What is really interesting, is that she doesn’t cut Francis any slack.  And she even takes it to fellow lefties for trying to reinterpret what he said until it doesn’t mean what it meant (a common tactic on that side).

“For this reason,” Francis says, “the Church recommends that people with this deep-seated tendency not be accepted into ministry or into consecrated life. Their place is not in ministry or in consecrated life.”

A number of progressive Catholics have rushed to Francis’ defense. Some argue that he is only opposed to priests and religious who break their vows of celibacy. Others insist that he did not include heterosexuals in his condemnation of celibacy-breakers because the interviewer’s question was specifically about gay priests and gay and lesbian religious.

But to apologize for Francis in these ways is to deny what he has said previously about homosexuality and about admitting gay men to the priesthood.

An example, is found also at Fishwrap.  Jesuit Thomas Reese with ultra-liberal RNS said… get this…

Others interpreted “deep-seated” as something akin to “uncontrollable” and therefore incapable of observing celibacy. In this interpretation, “deep-seated heterosexuality” would also be a problem. If the tendency was not “deep-seated,” if he could live a celibate life, then the man could enter the seminary and become a priest.

I guess you can be… what?… too heterosexual?  Yes, ladies and gentleman, Jesuits!

Back to task at hand.  Jamie goes on to deconstruct the phrase “deep-seated homosexual tendencies”, which the CCE’s 2005 used in their document on the homosexuals in seminaries and the priesthood (hint = no!).   She slides deeper and deeper into word salad.

In the end, she turns on Francis.

Regardless of his motivations, Francis’ characterizations of gays and lesbians and his notion of “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” will only foster the toxic homophobic attitudes that are already so prevalent in seminaries and religious communities, as well as in the wider church. In his attempt to discuss “the strength of a vocation,” he has only weakened what little hope LGBTQ Catholics still have for his pontificate.

In general, with Fishwrap and their papalotrous allies, there is hardly anything that Francis could cook up that they wouldn’t obstinately applaud.  Were Francis to stand at the beach and command that the tide not roll in, they would alternate between begging him to keep trying and attestations that the spiritually, at least, tide had ceased its progress at his behest.  They might out-Mottram Mottram.

Poor Fishwrap.

Francis said, in his interview book, “the Church recommends that people with this deep-seated tendency not be accepted into ministry or into consecrated life. Their place is not in ministry or in consecrated life.”  Back in May he told Italian bishops, “If you have even the slightest doubt, it is better not to let them in.”

Poor, poor readers of Fishwrap.

Here is a does of clarity.

As the late Bp. Morlino explained, if a man is attracted to men rather than women, then he is not attracted to marriage.  If he is not attracted to marriage, then giving up marriage  isn’t a sacrifice.  If he is celibate, unmarried, even if there is abstinence in body, the homosexual’s attitude of mind and heart cannot be, “I’m sacrificing marriage and it hurts!”  Moreover, I’ll add, the spousal relationship of the priest and the Church is deeply compromised when the man has these disordered attractions.

There.

Some sharing options...

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liberals, Sin That Cries To Heaven and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to A conflicted Fishwrap v. Francis on homosexuals in seminary and priesthood

  1. RichR says:

    If Sister Sally is helping out at a parish, and the diocese decided, for lack of space, she should just live in the rectory along with Father Joseph unsupervised, everyone would rightfully raise an eyebrow and make a ruckus because this would present a near occasion of sin to these two heterosexual people…and it would be a scandal to the laity. Forget vows, it just looks wrong and IS wrong.

    Now, take the same situation, but with two homosexual priests living together in a rectory unsupervised………

  2. Semper Gumby says:

    “There.” Indeed.

    “I guess you can be… what?… too heterosexual?” According to Cardinal Ouellet recently you can: “the Church needs to struggle against clericalism and extreme masculinity” in its own ranks. Ah, there’s that word again: “Struggle.”

    It’s kinda’ fun to see the Fishwrap crowd in an intramural foodfight, hurling fistfuls of soy jello at each other from their smorgasbord of acrimony.

    Disclaimer: Ok, I’ve just been informed that “soy jello” is real. No harm to those with jello allergies, or, to cover all the bases, to animals was intended by this comment.

  3. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

    I caught that Brideshead Revisited reference. I scooped that Hooper and moticed that Mottram.

    I’m liking what you’re serving.

    Now, back to Father’s Kitchen….I thought I smelled something so Italian that a Yank like me could never pronounce it…

  4. Ave Maria says:

    Words are one thing and actions are another. Homosexual men or those sympathetic to the agenda continue to enjoy favor from and in the Vatican. They continue to be promoted and appointed. The man in white seems to like the confusion and chaos…

  5. HvonBlumenthal says:

    Im afraid that I am reminded of the Soviet Union signing the Helsinki Accord, and then using this to prove that there could not possibly be any human rights abuses in the USSR.

  6. JustaSinner says:

    Why doesn’t the LGBTQCDUALAASASMFUNPVC (ALL The perversions must be given their ‘due’) form their own church and bother the Protestants. Maybe they can badger the Methodists…

  7. jaykay says:

    HvonBlenenthal: yes to the historical allusion, but in 1975 nobody in the West really knew how rotten the enemy was, nor could foresee how suddenly it would collapse. Thanks to the U.S. and those of its allies who weren’t blinkered – basically the U.K. That took another 15 years. Those of the great generation were still active then, thank God.

    These days, that generation is gone, and the enemy is truly within, in a way it wasn’t so much back then. It perverts everything – keeps the facade while rotting the structure. Our Holy Father knows that, I think, but… yeah, lots of buts.

  8. jaykay: no, the enemies of today have been within for quite a long time now: a line of popes stretching back to Pius IX warned us about them. They are just bolder and more open now. They think that this current pontificate heralds their Big Mo.

    It is at once hopeful and sobering that, while the enemy has his moment, God has eternity.

  9. Dismas says:

    Considering that the ebola virus is now running uncontained in a major city, anything goes for how the Lord sorts this mess out, and how long it takes.

  10. Dimitri_Cavalli says:

    To paraphrase a famous film, “Another Quaalude, and they’ll love the Pope again.”

  11. HvonBlumenthal says:

    Seriously? You think nobody knew? Not after Hungary 1956, the Bay of Pigs, the Prague Spring, and Solzhenitsyn?

    And now, in our own day, seriously, do you think nobody knows what the problem in the Church is or who is perpetuating it?

  12. jaykay says:

    HvonBlumenthal: Hold the horses. I clearly meant “rotten” in the sense of unsound, as in an unsound structure. Not rotten as in filthy – we knew it was that, although many useful idiots pretended otherwise. It appeared monolithic but in reality was built on sand. No, we didn’t really know.

    Yes, we do know about the Church nowadays. Obviously.

  13. Pingback: Catholic Blogosphere 12/9/18 – The Catholic Maniple

  14. teomatteo says:

    ” he has only weakened what little hope LGBTQ Catholics still have for his pontificate.”–Jamie
    The lady doth whineth too much. I heard of a Q-gospel but never heard of no Q catholic

  15. hwriggles4 says:

    Quite a few of our Protestant brethren are struggling with the LGBT issue. This summer, the Methodist church (my dad was a lifelong Methodist) had a convocation that was discussing some options – and it could involve splitting their denomination. I live in Texas, and many of the practicing Baptists I know think about the same as the “seven and seven ” (as CatholicMatch.com calls them – i.e. accept Church teaching) Catholics. Most Baptists (and probably Mormons) look at marriage as “one man, one woman.”

    I do know that the majority of Baptist preachers are Male (this may be dictated by the Southern Baptist Convention) and I know the Mormons do not have female clergy. Some Methodists, Presbyterians, and Lutheran clergy are female (I don’t know if the Lutherans allow female clergy in the LCMS or WELS). I also know quite a few Episcopalians who crossed the Tiber in part due to acceptance of homosexuality.

    Last month, I heard Cardinal Burke speak in Texas – the place was well attended – and he even said that several Protestant ministers have expressed concerns on “what’s happening to our world, and what is happening to the Catholic Church.”

  16. Ben Kenobi says:

    Two comments, two sides of the same coin.

    “Why doesn’t the LGBTQCDUALAASASMFUNPVC (ALL The perversions must be given their ‘due’) form their own church and bother the Protestants. Maybe they can badger the Methodists”

    Why did Sauron attack Gondor? He, like the forces arrayed against us know the truth. We have the truth. The protestants are small, and we are large. He attacks the strongest because that is where the source of his true opposition lies. We fall away, and the rest will follow. Some protestants resist this truth, but that is what is at stake here. We’re fighting a war for the soul of the Church, which the Enemy is seeking to claim.

    And why doesn’t he set up his own church? He already has. So many denominations have already fallen within the church of homosexuality. And he is warring against the Methodists, and the Baptists and everyone who remains outside of the ‘church’ of homosexuality. Everyone who has the temerity to seek refuge within Him and not outside of Him.

    I was one of those Church of England folks and it always struck me that the Church was the ultimate source of their fury for a reason, for it is the source of all opposition to them. And I realized that if that was true, then I had better get to those battlements.

    War is coming. So far the war has been fought on only one side, but that is going to change, and quick.

  17. ocleirbj says:

    Re: ” If he is not attracted to marriage, then giving up marriage isn’t a sacrifice. If he is celibate, unmarried, even if there is abstinence in body, the homosexual’s attitude of mind and heart cannot be, “I’m sacrificing marriage and it hurts!” ”

    I know a man who is gay and wishes he weren’t. It’s a case of the mind and heart being attracted to marriage, but the flesh being weak. Giving up marriage isn’t a choice for him, but a necessity of the Christian life. It is a real sacrifice, one that he feels is being imposed upon him against his will, by his fallen physical nature. It isn’t the willing gift of a soul responding to a vocation – and it hurts.

    The question for Catholics is, whether or not this sacrifice could – or should – be united to the freely chosen sacrifice of a religious or priestly vocation. The Pope is saying, that it can’t. It can certainly be united to the redemptive sacrifice of Christ, like all our earthly sufferings; but if a gay Catholic man is not able to choose either marriage or the religious life, he may come to believe that there is no place for him in the Church.

    Of course anyone can live a faithful, spiritually fruitful Christian life as a single person, but this isn’t always talked about or supported. The average parish will have Marriage Encounters, Vocation Retreats, Widows Support Groups, etc. But Faithful Singles? – ones that aren’t glorified dating services? not so much. Women can become Consecrated Virgins (unless lesbians are excluded?). What can men do? Not many parishes have Courage groups. Maybe Third Order communities are a good option. It’s so difficult to know.

    Meanwhile, my poor friend is facing a lonely future. Thank God he is still walking the path of faithful celibacy, but he struggles with the necessary, unwilling sacrifice of not only marriage, and the loving, intimate companionship of another person, but also any hope of life in close, permanent community with others, denied both a biological and a vowed religious family. Pray for him! and for all those in this situation.

  18. TonyO says:

    The question for Catholics is, whether or not this sacrifice could – or should – be united to the freely chosen sacrifice of a religious or priestly vocation. The Pope is saying, that it can’t.

    Very minor correction to your point: the man CAN be a priest or religious. If he got ordained, the ordination would “take” and he would in fact be a priest. The Pope is saying he should not be ordained or received into a religious order of celibate men.

    but if a gay Catholic man is not able to choose either marriage or the religious life, he may come to believe that there is no place for him in the Church.

    Very true, he may come to believe that.

    But it would be a wholly irrational thing to believe. At the current time there are vast swathes of adult men and women who are neither fit to become spouses in the foreseeable future, nor are they fit or called to the religious life. Their assigned lot (by God’s Providence) is to be holy single people, unless God chooses to change something and calls them to a different vocation. Among those unfit for marriage are (a) those who are mentally handicapped to the point of being unable to give marital consent, (b) those with deep habits of pornography which they have not yet shaken, (c) those who are mentally ill in grave manner (including huge numbers of those with clinical depression); (d) those in prison for a long time. This doesn’t even attempt to deal with the numbers who are COULD fittingly be married except that God is not calling them to that and not sending them a spouse who is fitting for them. In addition to the latter, what about those who could in theory be fittingly married, except that the numbers of possible appropriate potential spouses for them has been reduced so drastically by the above-mentioned categories of impediments?

    Every adult who is called by circumstance or by God’s positive vocation to be single is going to be lonely in some sense. Every priest and religious is lonely in some sense, too. Because there is a naturalness to the married state, indicated by God himself when Adam was in the Garden of Eden. But the naturalness of marriage is not an ultimate goodness: there is no marriage in heaven, and we are called to something higher than the goods of this life. Both the single person and the consecrated religious can more easily and more fully attend to developing their friendship with God, and learn to rest in that incredible friendship, than is readily accessible to married folk (though the latter are called to it anyway).

    However, one of the features of our society, with its break-down of the family, is that single adults often don’t even have extended family to be an intimate part of. If a man only ever had one sister, and she lives 2000 miles away with her husband and child, he has little opportunity to be a loving uncle present to family events, family holidays, etc. The breakdown of the family is damaging in ever more ways for those who are on the edges of “successful” society.

  19. Uxixu says:

    Anyone consciously choosing to identify with sexual deviance would be faced with a huge handicap in fulfilling their call to Christian chastity, let alone the perfect continence of the clerical state ideal in the West. Really, all sexuality should be suppressed by mortification of the flesh and the discipline of penance and prayer.

    Canonically, the Church should be strict on enforcing ecclesiastical discipline on all unchaste clerics, deposing prelates and involuntary laicization of all unchaste clerics. This was the recommendation of Fr. Gerald Fitzgerald back in the 50s & 60s to Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI and is consistent with the lessons from St. Peter Damian & St. Basil the Great.

Think, proof read, BEFORE posting! For special characters use UNICODE.