From the National Catholic Register with some editing and my emphases and comments.
While the consequences of abolishing Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell for the military is of great interest, for WDTPRS Mr. Drake’s comments on what homosexuality does to the priesthood and the whole Church are of greater importance. I urge you also to take a look at the whole article.
What the Military Must Learn from the Church
by Tim Drake Thursday, December 23, 2010
Yesterday, our Commander in Chief – the man whose most central oath is to strengthen and defend our country and its military – signed into law an action that will do more to damage U.S. military strength than any bombs or tanks of our enemies. With all due respect to separation of Church and State, the U.S. military could learn some valuable lessons from the Roman Catholic Church.
The combat forces of the U.S. military, like the Catholic priesthood, have always been built on a distinctly masculine bond of obligation. Both bands of brothers gather to protect something Sacred. The priestly gathering is most visible whenever two or more gather around the altar to celebrate Mass, with Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, at the Sacred Center.
Just as the military bands together in its collective duty to protect the nation and her citizens, so the priestly fraternity bands together in its
duty to spiritually protect the Church and her members.[…]
Been There, Done That
In Michael Rose’s 2002 book Goodbye! Good Men: How Catholic Seminaries Turned Away Two Generations of Vocations From the Priesthood, he explores the Church’s own period of openly accepting homosexual seminary candidates. Many seminaries celebrated the intimacies of homosexual relations, which are directly opposed to true “brotherhood.” [I’m afraid that this is true. It was hell being in seminary in those days.]
Rose describes the “lavenderization” of seminaries such as Chicago’s Mundelein Seminary and the Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium, and the homosexual culture present there even into the 1990s.
It is this culture that gave rise to the ordination of homosexuals who later went on to become serial abusers, men like Daniel McCormack, who reportedly had engaged in homosexual relations prior to and during his time at Mundelein. After his ordination, Father Daniel McCormack molested at least 23 boys. [If that is the case (and it is) then this lavendarization must have begun a long time ago.]
The connection between homosexuality and abuse was clearly demonstrated in 2004’s The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States, otherwise known as the John Jay Report, which was conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice and commissioned by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
According to the John Jay Report, 81% of the victims of clerical sexual abuse were males, the majority of whom were between the ages of 11-17.
Dr. Paul McHugh, former psychiatrist in chief at Johns Hopkins Hospital, has said that the report shows that the Catholic abuse crisis was “homosexual predation on American Catholic youth.”
Psychiatrist Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons has echoed that.“The John Jay report has revealed clearly that the crisis in the Church is not one of pedophilia but of homosexuality. The primary victims have not been children but adolescent males. Fitzgibbons told Catholic News Agency that “every priest whom I treated who was involved with children sexually had previously been involved in adult homosexual relationships.” [And yet many will assert that there is no connection between the the abuse and homosexuality, pointing to some other psychic flaw. I don’t buy it.]
It has always been the policy of the Church not to accept homosexuals as priests. For three decades that policy was egregiously disregarded. Following the sexual abuse crisis in the Church, and the results of the John Jay Report, the Church reaffirmed its policy in the 2005 statement, “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.”
That statement indicated that “the Church…cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called ‘gay culture.’” Furthermore, the statement went on, “Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women.”
In an accompanying Vatican commentary on the statement, Monsignor Tony Anatrella argued that theologically, homosexual priests cannot effectively incarnate either the “spousal bond” between God and the Church, or “spiritual paternity.”
“He must, in principle, be suitable for marriage and able to exercise fatherhood over his children,” wrote Monsignor Anatrella. Because the priest acts in the “person of Christ,” Anatrella said that the Church calls only “men mature in their masculine identity.” [It will be interesting to see what the breakdown of the nuclear family will have on generations of priests to come.]
“The Church has the right to refuse holy orders to those who do not have the requested attitudes or who, in one way or another, are not in harmony with the teaching it has received from its divine master,” he added, saying that the homosexual tendency was actually a “counterindication to the call to holy orders.”
Homosexual relationships caused a deep fracture in the priestly male fraternity. Pseudo-intimacy and intrigue replaced the outward looking evangelization of apostolic brotherhood. Bishops were unwilling to discipline the abusive priests under their charge. The Communio became divided. Religious leaders hid their own homosexual proclivities. The worst priests desacralized the liturgy and their vows and their priestly identity, while good priests often became isolated, fearful, and rigid. All priests were maimed. [maimed]
[…]
Yet, the Church bears, in herself, the answer. The Church already possesses a robust anthropology of male love. We, as a Church, have a sacramentalized male bond. We’ve been informed by the institution we are in that there is a proper way for men to love one another. The priestly fraternity images brotherly love, properly ordered. Homosexual behavior images disordered affection. [Don’t we often see how certain perverse thinkers attempt to turn storied and decent friendships between men in the past into some kind of twisted relationship? Most famous among these distorted friendships are that of Bl. John Henry Newman and Ambrose St. John, or St. Hildegard and a sister in the convent. “These two were friends, men who loved each other and therefore they were homosexual!” B as in B, S as in S.]In the priesthood, the priest unites with the spotless Bride – the Church. The priest sacrifices his own desires, giving up the love of another, for a far greater love. He surrenders his own singular needs and desires for the good of the many – Christ’s Body, the Church.
A soldier makes this same archetypal masculine sacrifice for the nation. He sacrifices personal freedom and family for the good of the nation. In both cases, it’s a sacrifice that, in different times and places, requires the shedding of blood – for God and country. And, in both cases, it’s a peculiarly masculine sacrifice.
The Church has an intimate understanding of the human person and properly ordered love. When the brotherhood is perverted, the institution breaks down. The breakdown in fraternity is a fissure that threatens to corrupt the entire institution.
[…]
Loading ...
I don’t know, Father Z. I understand the deep and lasting damage that acceptance of homosexuality did to the priesthood, but I am reminded that the Church commands that “[e]very sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (CCC 2358)
There has, of course, been much dispute over this passage. The line between avoiding discriminating and tacit acceptance of an immoral lifestyle is not always clear. For me, that line turns on whether I have a moral or theological objection to the act. Ordination to the priesthood and “marriage” of homosexuals therefore falls on the wrong side of the line.
But the military, as important as it is, is a civil profession. If we bar homosexuals from the military, I see little difference between that and a bar on them holding any profession (and not just professions where their immoral lifestyle would undermine their ability to do the job). And barring them from all employment seems certainly to be unjust discrimination.
I welcome contrary opinions, particularly arguments drawing on the magisterium of the Church. Merry Christmas to you all.
“When the brotherhood is perverted, the institution breaks down. The breakdown in fraternity is a fissure that threatens to corrupt the entire institution.”
So true. Sadly, the brotherhood was perverted long ago, yet few protested. First we saw the abomination of women placed onto warships, combat aircraft and now, most recently, submarines. (The fabled silent service, the dedicated fraternity of submariners, has been lavenderized.)
Adding homosexuals to the mix is even more damaging because such acts are intrinsically evil in every time and place. While feminism takes something good like the complementary role of women, distorts it and places it in the wrong place (the military), homosexuality is never good anywhere. Still, the fissures in fraternity will only deepen as more gays and women flock to the service. The latest abomination should be seen within the larger context of a decline, which historians will one day likely acknowledge, began decades earlier. As a Catholic and former naval officer, I weep for my beloved Navy.
I echo the concerns of MikeJ9919.
Could it be the case that we might banish homosexuals from all professions? I don’t see much difference between homosexual police officers and soldiers.
Mike,
The issue is not about barring or not barring the gaysa to get in the military.
It is about openly displaying their lifestyle in all situations.
In the past the toilets and bathrooms were shared by all men since the women didn’t serve in the military. Now the bathrooms and toilets for men are separate from those for women. All right.
Soon there will be special toilets and bathrooms intended to gay males separate from those of lesbians etc… Impossible to handle in war conditions on the battlefields.
Will the gay people require special uniforms in order to truly exhibit their differences? Probably.
And what about the bisexuals and the transgenders? Will they have special toilets and dormitories too? Or will they be allowed to sleep with the gay or with the heteros according to their actual trend?
The “Don’t ask, don’t tell” was the best way to handle the matter. Nobody ever asked me if I was straight heterosexual or bisexual and I never dared to ask anybody. This just don’t add anything to one’s capacity to serve.
Serve and shut up.
Crazy stuff.
There is a parallel between the Church and the military in that the same thing that has happened to the church could happen to the military: lavenderization, alienation, the prospect of our protectors turning on the unprotected among us, weakening of morale & purpose, etc.
However, the analogy is incomplete as some have pointed out rightly. The church is divine in origin and priesthood is a vocation. The military can be a career or a multi-year stint and it is an office in society, not divine in origin.
Therefore, if the military had any brains it would do what the Romans (and others) did: Drop the politically correct crap in favor of efficiency, and make exclusively homosexual platoons, pulling them out of the regular platoons which should remain silent as a result. Homosexual units can be very effective and fearsome. These men will fight to the death for each other. They have no reason to go home when in the military with other gay men. They become dedicated fighters. Yes, there is a lot of bitchy noise, doesn’t matter. Dress em up and turn them on our enemies.
The same thing goes for masculinized females who insist on joining the military and acting like men on the field. Group them together in women’s platoons and give them free rein on the battlefield. War is never a good thing and you don’t fight a war as a game, a pastime or an intrigue, which women know but men often do not. Men toy with it too much. Women get it over with, quickly & brutally, and get on to better things. If they insist on fighting, let them.
Some say: “hate the sin but love the sinner”. Can we also say: “hate the sinful tendency but love the one with the tendency?” Or should we say: “love the sinful tendency?” If we say “let’s allow some folks to officially proclaim their homosexuality and let’s acknowledge that tendency as a valid foundation of their identity” we are really saying: “let’s love the sinful tendency and let’s legitimize it”.
Andrew, in the church we can never do that because it can never “fit” into the theology and truth of the Church’s teaching, tradition and foundations.
In civil society, it may well happen and it would be bad but civil societies can do bad things.
Well you know there are these ‘laws’ now about ‘hate’ speech and ‘bullying’ and so forth that give certain individuals more rights and protections than others.
So if Drill Sergeant is as strict as some are, might that not be considered ‘bullying’ by some sensitive individuals and if they are of the protected class with how they like to have sex be the most important fact about them, would that not lead to lawsuits and damages awarded???
The disordered tendency colors everything! The infiltration of perversion into the military does break the bond of brotherhood. This is a calculated move! Our society in its desire to welcome all ‘diversity’ (not Catholicism) has embraced, protected, and promoted immoralities that will lead with all certainty to the demise of our society. The family is broken. So many young people have no idea of right or wrong or morality. Read the Old Testament: conseqences ALWAYS come! All these intrinsic evils will infallibly bring dire consequences; it is only a matter of time.
Does this mean to lvie in far? No. It means to seek holiness and sanctification because the thing that makes the most difference in this world that is growing dark is the presence of the light of saintly people. Be one.
There is a serious difference between the military, at least a major part of it, and any other profession, including police officers. In most professions people don’t live and socialize with their co-workers. They only see the people they work with during work hours.
For the most part, members of the military live and eat together. They also shop at the same PX (or BX) and Commissary, go to the same gym, and socialize together. In combat this closeness is magnified, with soldiers sleeping within an arm’s length of each other.
Fr. Z., I thought you hit the nail right on the head with the perverse thinking of individuals twisting relationships. I was very upset to see in an interview Ben Stiller turn on Peter Jackson and try to make him state that the relationship between Frodo & Sam in the LOTR movies was homosexual.
Otherwise: GREAT ARTICLE!! The guy is completely on target. Catholic in Midwest also has some very intelligible remarks. However, I can’t help but ask “why” they would be so loyal to one another. I wonder if it isn’t rooted in the disorder itself and therefore giving them such an opportunity to fight as described above is conducive to their interior lives.
-KJS
catholicmidwest says:
Therefore, if the military had any brains it would do what the Romans (and others) did: Drop the politically correct crap in favor of efficiency, and make exclusively homosexual platoons, pulling them out of the regular platoons which should remain silent as a result. Homosexual units can be very effective and fearsome. These men will fight to the death for each other. They have no reason to go home when in the military with other gay men. They become dedicated fighters. Yes, there is a lot of bitchy noise, doesn’t matter. Dress em up and turn them on our enemies.
Two problems:
First, it is possible that a homosexual be given command over non homosexuals. I was told by an Army major that in fact this is already a problem. He put it thus: When a lesbian who doesn’t try to hide her inclinations is given command, there are problems with subordinates.
Second, put 50 homosexuals in a platoon, and there are bound to be “romantic” rivalries and love triangles.
Some people seem to think that homosexual men are all effeminate.
I assure you, this is NOT true.
America is becoming more like Britain every day.
As one who went through seminary in the mid to late 1990s (and didn’t make it) at a lavendar seminary, I can tell you that it was very hard to remain interested in the Church. We had a group of seminarians who were mockingly called, “The Backrub Buddies.” The pervasiveness of “tolerance” was so rampant that if one didn’t accept fully the actions of the “lavendar” seminarians, things were made difficult.
Honestly, I can tell you that the harm that was done to the seminaries at that time was immeasurable. Faithful priests have tried to explain the feeling, but it so unbelievably hard to do that most cannot properly express it. I was unable to do it until I moved away from seminary and had my Faith in the Catholic Church saved by three men. 1) Monsignor Richard J. Schuler. 2) Rev. Robert Altier. 3) Rev. John Zuhlsdorf. Once I left seminary, I was fortunate to be able to move into a rectory and I was literally saved. It was during that time that I was given sage advice, which I have only very recently come to fully understand. It is this:
Seldom affirm,
NEVER deny,
and when all else fails,
HIDE UNDER THE BED!
Hiding under the bed was (and in some certain cases, still) the best practice.
It is clear that vocations have taken a hard hit. One, that while devestating, is slowly being overcome. However, the “lavedar” nature is still there and it has to be completely overcome. The “tolerance” must be stopped. Seminarians must stand up for their right to have an orthodox education. Yes, there should be sense of submission, but that submission is HOLY SUBMISSION to the Church, not submission to the “lavendar” whims of men and women who have an agenda to undermine Holy Mother Church and reform it in their own “lavendar” image.
So, on this day after Christmas, I want to say THANK YOU to Fr. Z. I don’t know if he realizes what all those Saturday mornings and various suppers around the dining room table at St. Agnes did for one Catholic.
From <>
The title of the book [Newman’s Unquiet Grave: The Reluctant Saint] alludes to the attempt made in October 2008 to translate Newman’s mortal remains from his Worcestershire grave to a place where they could be publicly venerated. The excavation recovered fragments of a coffin and an inscribed brass plate, but no trace of any bodily remains – either of Newman himself, or of the close friend beside whom he had been buried, Fr Ambrose St John. The upshot of the attempted exhumation was not to provide a shrine for a relic, but to trigger a media debate about whether Newman was gay.
The question is anachronistic. Nineteenth-century Anglicans and Catholics did not classify themselves in accordance with forms of sexual orientation. According to the Christian moral code, sexual activity, whether solitary, homosexual or heterosexual, was sinful except in marriage. For men, therefore, who had given up matrimony and obliged themselves to celibacy, sexual activity with either male or female was forbidden, and sexual attraction whether to male or female could be nothing but a temptation. No doubt different people would find themselves beset by different kinds of temptation, but they did not see these temptations as in any way defining their personality.
I do not know whether those who wish to set up Newman as a gay icon believe that he was homosexually active, but any suggestion that he was is absurd. A man so devout and conscientious would have recoiled from what his Church condemned as one of the worst of sins. Well into the twentieth century, the Catholic Catechism listed “the sin of Sodom” – along with wilful murder, and defrauding the poor of their wages – as a “sin crying out to heaven for vengeance”.
Partly because of this rigorous prohibition of homosexual activity, Victorian Christians felt free to express to members of the same sex affection in language which in our very different climate would appear ambiguous. Cornwell deals sensitively and temperately with this issue, comparing Newman’s attachments with the earlier literary intimacies between Wordsworth, Coleridge and Southey. He goes on to show, by listing parallels, that the burial of friends side by side need have no erotic significance. He might have added to his list the recent case of the philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe, who at her request was buried beside the grave of Ludwig Wittgenstein.
This article was spot on, but I believe the similarities run even deeper. As a Naval Officer, I was saddened years ago when the Navy officially dropped “tradition” as one of our core values. The effect has been apparent in many ways to include things at the surface level such as new uniforms that have no connection with past, to the abandonment of Chief’s Initiation which gave us some of the best NCOs on the planet. The embrace of homosexuality will be another such damaging event.
And I use the term “embrace” intentionally. While the military did not choose this, but rather as Patrick Buchanan pointed out, “The least respected of American institutions, Congress, with an approval rating of 13 percent, is imposing its cultural and moral values on the most respected of American institutions, the U.S. military,” we will embrace the change because we will follow orders. It’s what we do. While DADT provided a method for homosexuals to serve and make their actual service that which truly matters, we will now certainly saturate the ranks with mandatory homosexual acceptance training as we move to carry out the order and oddly is people’s homosexuality and not their service which will matter.. Indeed, the military will be teaching it’s new recruits that homosexuality is simply “okay.” Bank on it. Further, we will report a successful implementation of the new policy with little or no mention of any negative side effects. In fact, as Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, stated, “In the end, if there is either policy direction that someone in uniform disagrees with…and you feel so strongly about it — you know, the answer is not advocacy; it is in fact to vote with your feet.”
I will follow his advice. My retirement papers will go in on 01 July 2011.
When the liturgy is perverted, the institution breaks down even faster.
FWIW, the lavendar-ization of Milwaukee’s Seminary began about 5++ years before the arrival of + Rembert Weakland. It was during the reign of + Wm Cousins.
Hmm. It would seem the military’s REAL problem, then, was admitting women, thus turning a men’s space into a mixed-heterosexual space. Admitting homosexuals, at this point, seems like an after-thought.
The URL for the TLS review:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/article7164550.ece
Given that this article is based on the masculine nature of the military, if we let women in the military, why not gays? I’m not sure the analogy between military life and the priesthood is apt.
carl b said: if we let women in the military, why not gays?
———–
Allowing women in combat roles was another huge mistake and did much to break the military brotherhood/ethos. But, we in the military reported it as nothing but a success. As we will with allowing open homosexuality.
Allowing women into the armed forces had originally been ‘temporary’ but like many other temporary things the change tends to become permanent… much like that temporary tax hike.
It might be worth noting that the US Marine Corps for generations forbade low level enlistees from marriage and it was only upon reachings 2 or 3 stripes that family life outside the unit became possibility.
The testimony of an American priest moved me. He is one of the many tough veterans of WWII who went from Tarawa and Anzio and Normandy to Seminary He remembered not one case of homosexual approach or dismissal for homosexual tendencies in his seminary, it was a real Band of Brothers, mostly vets and if there be any flaw in them it was ecumenism: hard not to feel closer to the Prod in your foxhole praying the Our Father than to a Catholic draft dodger.
By the way, speaking of Newman. His friend was UGLY AS SIN and lovable to all.
Magpie
Having spent several years in the military and 40 + in law enforcement there are some differences between the two. Law Enforcement personnel do not as a general rule live 24/7 in quarters with others in the profession whereas the military does. Having said that I do not believe that anyone who holds a position of authority and trust shuld be allowed in that position/profession if they are a practicing homosexual. There is just too much probability of abusing that authority/trust by forcing homosexual acts upon others. The problem with homosexuality in the military has been addressed. Cops have contact with the young and vulnerable as do teachers. There are too many (1 is too many) documented cases of people in those professions forcibly (or by intimidation/violation of trust) abusing others with homosexual acts.
The implementation of this policy will require the imposition of strict PC discipline. A Catholic chaplain will certainly not be permitted to utter “hate speech” referring to homosexual practices as sinful. Not that such things are generally preached from the pulpit in any event. But it is offensive to think that a lame duck Congress has adopted a policy which will require the military to censor the Bible.
I feel like I have to weigh in on this somewhat. I am a 3rd generation woman veteran and 4th gen vet in my family. I was on active duty in the Army from 1997-2002, and even in 1st Infantry Division. I must say that there are indeed problems with women in unlimited roles in the armed forces, most of this having to do with the pervasive pornography and lack of virtue within the military. The hyper-sexualization leads to big problems. Funny thing though, I had fewer female friends assaulted by male soldiers than males victimized by males. And this was with DADT being “enforced”. The victims were often silenced, and the perpetrators of either type of crime were often quietly moved around, just like we did in the Church.
In hindsight, I do think that having mixed units of men and women does cause problems. This does not call into question the valiant service of the women in my family and those that I served with. It just states a plain fact that it makes things more challenging, and sets people up to be victimized or manipulated, men and women. I think that the open homosexual service will hurt the military even worse. It further blurs the lines of gender roles, as well as moral codes. The hyper-sexuality will reach new soaring heights. It will damage recruitment, national security, and worse yet, the salvation of many souls.
PRAY PRAY PRAY for all of our military chaplains.
I dunno… the introduction of women to the military hardly seems to have resulted in a large scale breakdown of the military. In fact, in many ways, it was a positive development for discipline and professionalism in our armed forces.
I’m not sure what that can tell us about the effects that open homosexuals will have on the military, but, as a result, I’m nost sure how much I buy this analysis.
It is tiresome that the author considers celibacy as intrinsic to the priesthood. It is not, unless we wish to denigrate further priests and bishops from the early Church, our convert married Latin priests, and our current Eastern priestly brethren both in and out of full communion with Rome. [Hmmm… I think that his main point is that priests need to be men who can indeed be in a real spousal relationship, can be true husbands and fathers.]
Another flaw in his argument is his failure to realize that while the majority of child-abusing priests have same-sex attractions, it does not follow that most or all same-sex-attracted men are likely to abuse minors.
He is also wrong to assume that all Catholic men with same-sex desires accept the false anthropology peddled by the “LGBT community” and its allies. Consider the point in the Vatican instruction about accepting the so-called gay culture.
This piece will persuade very few of those not already convinced.
I very much agree with both MikeJ9919 and Magpie.
The article says that “In the priesthood, the priest unites with the spotless Bride – the Church. The priest sacrifices his own desires, giving up the love of another, for a far greater love. He surrenders his own singular needs and desires for the good of the many – Christ’s Body, the Church.”
Very true. But then the article disturbs me when it goes on to say: “A soldier makes this same archetypal masculine sacrifice for the nation. He sacrifices personal freedom and family for the good of the nation. In both cases, it’s a sacrifice that, in different times and places, requires the shedding of blood – for God and country. And, in both cases, it’s a peculiarly masculine sacrifice.”
I think it is very dangerous to overly compare the priesthood with a nation’s military, and to put “God and country” on an equal footing. Nations come and go, but the Eternal Church remains.
Also, priests do not kill; soldiers do. It is far better to compare the the sacrifices and duties of the priesthood and religious life with those of married life and parenthood. The Church teaches that because of the very nature of the priesthood, a proper sense of masculinity is required, just as it is to be a husband and a father, and femininity for a wife and mother. Is a proper sense of masculinity required to be in the military? Not so long as women are allowed. So, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” does not seem to make much sense from that perspective.
The left’s two biggest enemies are the military and the Catholic Church. The repeal of DADT gives a hard kick in the groin to both institutions. There are several issues that immediately spring to mind: We already have discrimination in the officer corps with preferential treatment of promotions going to minorities and women, what happens when a gay/lesbian gets passed over? They immediately shout, “discrimination” and will get picked up at a faster rate than others. This will lead to a rapid takeover of senior officers who are homosexual, leading to??? There is already a undermanning of Catholic chaplains now, many will get out when they fear court marshal for mentioning this particular sin in conversation, a homily, or in Confession. Of course they would not be able to repeat anything said in the confessional, and therefore would not be able to defend themselves. What will happen when a Catholic priest refuses to “marry” a gay couple? For once they are out, gays will quickly demand “equal rights” in terms of dependent status for their lovers, marriage, and “spouse” survivor benefits.
It has already been spelled out that anyone who “turns in” blatent homosexual behavior will likely be the one in trouble, we have already seen female officers making out on base with little concern shown. On the other hand, officer spouses are discouraged from any sign of affection on base for “conduct unbecoming of an officer.” The standards will become blatently twisted very quickly. We only have 18 months left before retirement and are reconsidering encouraging our children from pursuing a military academy education.
MikeJ9919 (with the concurrence of Magpie and Geoffrey),
You said,
I would encourage everybody responding, particularly you three, to review the 1992 CDF document, Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons.
The entire document is very illuminating, but I would want to share two paragraphs from it here:
Our society’s full and unreserved acceptance of sodomy, as epitomized by this recent bill signed into law by Mr. Obama, formalizes our society’s utter rejection of 2,000 years of apostolic teaching along with 1,500 years of divine law that preceded it. To my knowledge, the US was the last major power to hold to that teaching. This act makes the Holy Father’s words on the 20th (Address to the Roman Curia) very poignant:
We will, as never before, be living in very, very interesting times.
Drake is reheating Rose’s specious diatribe which is based on scant anecdotal “evidence” for the purpose of offering a critique of the President’s authorization of the revocation of DADT. [Rose’s book describes my experience. But I guess that’s only anecdotal.] Enough with scapegoating gay priests for the sexual abuse crisis! Are the only effective, hardworking, creative, intelligent, spiritual priests genitally continent heterosexuals? Yes, and there are reindeer tracks on my rectory roof.
If there is any truth to Rose’s thesis that two generations of “good” priests were lost due to the lavenderization of the seminaries (which is hardly proven), the more recent pogrom against homosexually oriented seminarians will likely result in their become much more closeted.
Pushing gay seminarians deeper into hiding will not assist their spiritual, emotional and psychological health. It will lead to self-loathing and an inability to become effective priests. With current emphases on the dainty accoutrements of the unreformed liturgy (of which the cappa magna is a glaring but hardly sole example) how likely is it, really, that exclusively straight men are going to be attracted to the priesthood? [That is a common cheapshot used by liberals who don’t like the older liturgical forms. They play the “effeminate” card. I think this discussion deserves better than that.]
All seminarians – gay, straight and bisexual – need to learn how to intergrate their sexuality into a healthy spirituality. This will reduce maladaptive conduct of priests, particuarly those who would tend toward predatory behavior.
With regard to the military, the repeal of DADT will permit all members of the armed forces to “live honorably in the daylight” and serve their county proudly without gay servicemembers caring the burden of concealing their sexuality. How many gay women and men have given their last measure of devotion in the service to their country? Are their deaths any less tragic than those of their straight sisters and brothers?
Good post, Father Z. Causality will play itself out, and the consequences for western civilization will be enormous.
The moral compass of the USA has been abandoned. It might be only a few generations until a once great nation, having had its magnificent Constitution emptied of meaning, will be relegated to second or third place, or worse (and… guess who’s poised to advance? – a godless China!). The progression is nothing new: Greece, Rome, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire… the microcosm will play itself out in the macrocosm. Individual immorality translates into the moral decline of nations. There is simply no way a nation can sustain itself when it’s heart – the family, human relationships – become corrupt. Without the proper moral formation of a nation’s politicians and soldiers, a nation’s citizenry cannot expect the heroism from its soldiers that it needs to brace itself against the tyranny and darkness of a dictator, either one from within or from without. And, no amount of silky speech from some slick politician will halt an adversary’s advance. (Pope Leo the Great managed to deter Attila with words – but he had God on his side!). Remember Prime Minister Chamberlain? Appeasement worked, eh?
The only way the Constitution will once again become the banner of civilization is when the citizenry embraces the heart from which the document received it’s very substance, i.e., Christ and Christianity. The code by which the Constitution is correctly interpreted is/was inscribed on the human heart. With the human heart dulled by sin (lust issuing forth in homosexual acts and envy seeking the redefinition of marriage; divorce, abortion… .), corrupt men can and will empty even the most sacred documents and use them to their own ends (e.g., Holy Writ used by so-called christians (TEC) to actually justify homosexual acts!). When that happens en-masse, a nation is doomed. Recent developments are merely a symptom of the series of causalities in play. However, the hard edge of the sword (a nation’s military) will be brittle and easily broken if not tempered and made strong in the forge of morality.
For want of a nail,… . For want of a pure heart.
Fr Basil, you said, “Some people seem to think that homosexual men are all effeminate.” Yes, many people think this, but I am well aware that some of them are big tough guys. They stereotype each other in various ways too.
Kevin, you said, “However, I can’t help but ask “why” they would be so loyal to one another. I wonder if it isn’t rooted in the disorder itself and therefore giving them such an opportunity to fight as described above is conducive to their interior lives.”
Of course it’s rooted in their disorder. Everything they do is rooted in their disorder if they classify themselves by their sexual preferences above all else and are willing to make a lot of noise about it. If you care about their spiritual and personal lives, by all means pray for them, but don’t suppose that some kind of faint hoping and protecting on your part will keep them from what they’re going to do if they want to. Each person must make the choice to improve and you can’t do that for them. They’re big boys and they’re in the army.
Frjim4321,
Catholics need to make it our first institutional priority to get gay seminarians OUT of the seminary BEFORE they are ordained, while the damage they can cause is still contained. The second priority needs to be to get the priests that we have that are “gay” to shut the hell up, live their vocation out decently and behave themselves. There is no place in the priesthood for homosexual nonsense. It’s explicitly forbidden by scripture for starters.
Father Jim said: “With regard to the military, the repeal of DADT will permit all members of the armed forces to “live honorably in the daylight” and serve their county proudly without gay servicemembers caring the burden of concealing their sexuality. How many gay women and men have given their last measure of devotion in the service to their country? Are their deaths any less tragic than those of their straight sisters and brothers?”
————-
Ironically, it will make their sexual disorder even more the issue given the nature of the homosexual lobby to highlight everyone in society, whether those individuals want the attention or not, as being homosexual in an effort to spread “awareness.” Further, you can bank on the military now teaching impressionable young recruits how “normal” homosexuality is.
Now if want to say that we should go out of our way to malign those in uniform who are struggling with homosexual tendencies and even those who have succumb to temptation, then I agree wholeheartedly. All should be treated with the dignity of being created in the image of God. But that is not what this about. It is wholesale about legitimizing a disordered and sinful lifestyle. As both a Catholic and Naval Officer, I see nothing “honorable” about that.
Geoffrey says:
I think it is very dangerous to overly compare the priesthood with a nation’s military, and to put “God and country” on an equal footing. Nations come and go, but the Eternal Church remains.
It’s correct that nations come and go, but war remains–even for atheists. Only the dead have seen the end of war.
It is far better to compare the the sacrifices and duties of the priesthood and religious life with those of married life and parenthood.
Disagree. Those in the military are required to sacrifice family life when they are deployed.
The Church teaches that because of the very nature of the priesthood, a proper sense of masculinity is required, just as it is to be a husband and a father, and femininity for a wife and mother. Is a proper sense of masculinity required to be in the military? Not so long as women are allowed. So, “Don’t ask, don’t tell” does not seem to make much sense from that perspective.
You seem to want to apply individual rights to the problem. The relevant question is what works and what does not in a military unit.
The “proper sense of masculinity” in the military has been mitigated by technology.
CMW, are you positing that only gay priests harm the church? And that gay priests do not provide worthwhile ministerial acts in the church?
I read the book, “Goodbye, Good Men,” and I found it too plausible that the military would soon be in as dire straits as the priesthood is now. Yes, in the 19th century there may have been a larger that the population average of homosexual men in uniform, both in the Army and in the Navy. I’ve come to that conclusion from reading contemporary writings and admonishments to “young men” from Church publications (such as a Guide for Catholic Men, once owned by my grandfather) Other than being a military officer, or someone drafted into uniform, being “enlisted” was on the lower rungs of “polite society” and often thought of as being the same as a “open” homosexual.
The “change” in the view point of general society towards the military in general, and enlisted members specifically did not occur until AFTER World War II. (When the current Uniformed Code of Military Justice UCMJ was written.) And the “blessings” (as well as benefits) to have the career military members, (and NOT just the officer corps), married and with children. The assertion was that being married with a wife and children, “settled” down and domesticated a man. This changes the societal perception of a man in military service, from being a sexual predator, to being something more honorable, a defender of the hearth and home. With women in military service, we have had a more difficult time of it, the same stresses on a marriage, and then double it. Women in the military service are neither “nuns” (vowed to self-less service to others), nor “Jezebels” (self-serving, of loose morals and low standards), but it seems that still only two stereotypes still exist to this day.
The priesthood, as I knew the institution while growing up, and as a young adult, was composed of men that took vows of “chastity” and “celibacy” and took those vows seriously. There have been very few priests serving as chaplains that ever caused me to wonder about their vocation or practice of being a priest. And this includes the 4 priests that were ordained to the Roman Catholic Priesthood while being married, and having families that included children.
But knowing all that I knew then, all I know now, and what I fear may happen; I cannot in good conscience advise “anyone” on joining the military (enlisting or seeking a commission) .
My post above should have said…
Now if want to say that we should NOT go out of our way to malign those in uniform who are struggling with homosexual tendencies and even those who have succumb to temptation, then I agree wholeheartedly.
“The same thing goes for masculinized females who insist on joining the military and acting like men on the field. Group them together in women’s platoons and give them free rein on the battlefield.”
Some of you may remember when Rush Limbaugh proposed, only partly in jest, that the military take advantage of the natural tendency among women who live or work in close quarters to start having their menstrual cycles become synchronized… platoons of women soldiers could all be organized on a schedule insuring that they went to the front at “that time of the month.” I’m female and I thought, now THERE would be one way to strike terror into the heart of just about any enemy :-)
As for gays in the military…. my husband is a Navy veteran; he served before DADT, when it was still possible to investigate someone suspected of being homosexual and to have them expelled. He had a superior officer on his ship who was later discharged for that reason, and this person, he says, made his life a living hell. Needless to say he is totally opposed to gays in the military.
Sure enough, frjim4321. My reasons?
Start with the official “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.”
Add the accompanying document which says very clearly, “…..theologically, homosexual priests cannot effectively incarnate either the “spousal bond” between God and the Church, or “spiritual paternity.” ……“He must, in principle, be suitable for marriage and able to exercise fatherhood over his children,” wrote Monsignor Anatrella. Because the priest acts in the “person of Christ,” Anatrella said that the Church calls only “men mature in their masculine identity.”
Add the fact that over 80% of the sexual abuse crisis was abuse of young males by ordained men.
Anyone who can’t decipher that is just plain stupid.
Add tradition. Add church teaching for centuries.
And if that isn’t enough, add scripture reference after scripture reference which call homosexuality wicked. It’s hard to preach something that condemns the lifestyle one is LIVING. In fact, it’s quite impossible, so gay priests have a real problem, don’t they?? It’s called conflict of interest and it’s a profound one for them.
And frjim4321,
Yes, ordained men who have had gay sex with somebody and been prosecuted in court have hurt the church to the tune of approximately 3 billion dollars give or take a few hundred million. And that’s only in the USA. That figure doesn’t even include the carnage in Ireland, Germany or elsewhere. I’d call that sizeable, wouldn’t you?
cmw, you are refering to the 1.5 to 3.0% of priests who are the perpetrators that we know of . . . the sexual abuse of a minor is not “having sex with somebody.” If most of the priests who cost the church $3B were right handed, would you remove all right handed men from the seminaries?
My husband is currently serving in the military, and he and his fellow commanders are disgusted by the revoking of DADT, many lies have been told by the media about the service memebers approval of this. The troops feel they were sold out by the generals whose only concerns are their own careers. God bless the Marine generals who are brave enough to speak the truth! The people who fought for the repeal of DADT are not groups who have ever had the best interests of the military as an important priority. The military is not the place for social experiments.
frjim4321,
“It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
“It depends on how you define alone….”
Maybe they never inhaled either. Yeah, that’s it.
If it were immoral to be right-handed your argument would make sense, but it isn’t. It is, however, as immoral as hell to carry on sexually in a homosexual manner. And no amount of equivocation and verbal BS can change that.
And the fact of the matter is that the $3 billion dollars was the cost not of being right-handed or any such harmless thing. It was the cost of grown men ruining thousands of childrens’ lives and getting dragged through the courts for years. I know it was only a few percent, but with priests like that, the demons must be out of work.
The military needs to learn from the church, because they’re going to have at least as much trouble now that they’re going to go through the same crap we’ve been saddled with. It’ll be interesting to see how they handle it–and if they manage it better than we do.
Dear Father jime4321
With all due respect for Priesthood I would suggest you familierise yourself with the Church’s teachings on this issue and defend your Bride against those who would harm her rather than aiding and abetting them.
Yes the Priest (and male religious) must be hetrosexual because he sacrifices his right to marry a good Catholic girl and have natural children to act as the alter Christus, to immitate his celibate Chastitiy, to be Wed to his Divine Bride the Church and to have as many spiritual children as God gives him.
As for these homosexual predetor priests; the hurt they casued goes beyoned the trauma they inflicted upon their victims/their families and the financial damage they inflicted upon the Church. I remember 10 years ago as a young 12 yr old (agnostic) the reports from the first round of abuse cases, my thoughts were “you’re supposed to be men of the cloth and you do this, why should I take anything you say seriously” – bad logic I know but my point is that even people with a passing knowledge of the True Faith knows about the celibacy of Catholic Priests, monks and Religious Sisters and it is a GREAT witness to the world and predetor priests have done great damage to that witness in the recent past.
As for the U.S Millitary I’m worried- would it be to much to hope that the new congress will do something about it? In England there are no ‘lame duck’ parliments – the old MPs actually have their security passes taken away 40 days before the election and the new ones turn up a day or two afterwoods to be sworn in. The Cabinet and the PM are the only ones who can actually do anything during this time.
Thanks for posting Fr Jim, your posts have been a good balance to the debate, and brings to light the fact that there are many many good priests who have a homosexual sexual orientation. From some of the comments above people may believe hat homosexual clergy = abusers, utter slander and total rubbish when looking the figures… Thanks again Fr Jim. [And it is total rubbish that there are “many many” priests with homosexual orientation. My experience is that there are not that many, thanks be to God. We must pray for those who do have this troubling Cross to bear. And no one has said that homosexual = abuser. If anything, the article cited in the top entry claims most abusers are homosexual, not that most homosecuals are abusers.]
FrJim – and those who agree with him,
The Church’s highest authorities have stated – explicitly – that homosexuals, whether sexually active or chaste – are not to be ordained to the priesthood. Here’s the 2005 document:
Here are the Pope’s words in Light of the World:
Homosexuality is a disorder. That doesn’t mean homosexuals who have already been ordained priests can’t validly administer the sacraments, nor that all priests in that situation are living lives of sexual incontinence or repellent effeminacy: while many are, there’s no doubt some are not. What it does mean is that any man who, knowing himself to be homosexually oriented, presents himself for ordination (whether by being dishonest/keeping quiet, or with the complicity of a disobedient and perhaps similarly compromised vocations director/bishop) is going against the explicit will of the Bride of Christ, and behaving like a man who marries a woman under false pretences.
The Church does make provision for homosexuals in apostolates like Courage. Perhaps more could, and should, be done in this regard, given the constant barrage of propaganda put out by our degenerate culture. Homosexuals can achieve sanctity, just like anyone (everyone!) else who suffers temptations to grave sins and yet resists them. What they must not do is lie to themselves and the Church in order to get themselves ordained.
Pederasty has been the dominant form of homosexuality throughout history and is the manner in which they sexually reproduce.
In four short segments, Prof Charles E. Rice details the violence of homosexuals in Antiquity and their corrosive effect on military morale.
http://tinyurl.com/27nh93q
http://tinyurl.com/24h8888
http://tinyurl.com/37cd9lm
http://tinyurl.com/23dx3v3
PREDICTION
The effect won’t be immediate because the job market is so poor but this will eventually harm recruitment and result in a push for the draft. Is it too much to imagine a situation where those conscientious objectors who object to serving with “gays” are sent away to nut houses in the name of tolerance?
I agree with you, Fr Jim. Thank you for your contribution to this debate. I have known many priests with homosexual inclinations, but only in those who were ‘in denial’ had it become a destructive force.
Thank you Ezra for your comment especially the plug
for Courage ( part of the outreach to gay Catholics in the
archdiocese of New York…please, please,please Fr.Jim
go to the Courage website and avail yourself to the
magnificent witness of men and women taking Jesus up on
his word to pick up one’s cross and follow Him).
To all, I recommend St.Peter Damian’s 31 Letter (The
Book of Gommorah) .We have been here before. Gay
people cannot present themselves to Holy Orders or
Religious life. Period. ……….. As to the US Military this is
another major nail in the coffin.
Frjim4321: “…How many gay women and men have given their last measure of devotion in the service to their country? Are their deaths any less tragic than those of their straight sisters and brothers?…”
A corollary to your statement is: how many adulturous women and men have given their last measure of devotion in the service to their country? Are their deaths any less tragic than those of their straight sisters and brothers?
No …their deaths are NOT less tragic than others … but there is no need to highlight and normalize adultury and homosexuality. Repealing DADT is NORMALIZING homosexual behaviour.
katherine collins: “…What will happen when a Catholic priest refuses to “marry” a gay couple? For once they are out, gays will quickly demand “equal rights” in terms of dependent status for their lovers, marriage, and “spouse” survivor benefits.…”
I think this situation will not happen. At one point during my 20-year tenure in the military I asked a post Protestant chaplain to marry me and my Shinto/Buddhist fiance. When he discovered I was a Zen Buddhist, he refused point blank (but politely). I protested, telling him he was in the military to serve the soldiers — and should do at least the documentation. He calmly explained that although he was required to provide comfort to the military … he could not be made to do something he thought was wrong and not in keeping with Christianity. “It’s not merely a legal procedure,” he said to me. I think military chaplains will continue to be able to exert the same discretion anent homosexual “marriages.”
–Guy Power
(Oh … we ended up with a civillian JP; we both eventually gravitated to Christianity)
frjim4321 says:
Drake is reheating Rose’s specious diatribe which is based on scant anecdotal “evidence” for the purpose of offering a critique of the President’s authorization of the revocation of DADT. Enough with scapegoating gay priests for the sexual abuse crisis!
You seem unaware of the statistics–81% of the victims were male. In so far as all priests are male, that means 81% of the abuse cases concern homosexuality. Almost all of those victims were in some stage of puberty, which means it was not a case of pedophilia (which is gender neutral) but rather ephebophilia, which many consider to be essentially homosexual.
Are the only effective, hardworking, creative, intelligent, spiritual priests genitally continent heterosexuals? Yes, and there are reindeer tracks on my rectory roof.
That sounds Calvinist–the proof of righteousness is hard working success.
If there is any truth to Rose’s thesis that two generations of “good” priests were lost due to the lavenderization of the seminaries (which is hardly proven), the more recent pogrom against homosexually oriented seminarians will likely result in their become much more closeted.
The lavenderization of the seminaries was part of a larger program to suppress Catholic doctrine, and that includes sexual morality (contraception, homosexuality), matters of the faith, and Latin liturgy. I personally know candidates for the priesthood eliminated by vocation directors and formation committees because they adhered to Catholic doctrine or liked Latin liturgy.
I can recall none of your comments here that manifested any regard for Catholic doctrine. Mostly, you seem only interested in propagating lardy liberalism.
Pushing gay seminarians deeper into hiding will not assist their spiritual, emotional and psychological health. It will lead to self-loathing and an inability to become effective priests.
And so you disagree with the pope (and catechism) that says that homosexual tendencies are intrinsically disordered.
With current emphases on the dainty accoutrements of the unreformed liturgy (of which the cappa magna is a glaring but hardly sole example) how likely is it, really, that exclusively straight men are going to be attracted to the priesthood?
If you want to see the unreformed liturgy without the so-called dainty accoutrements, I suggest you spend a week at Clear Creek Abbey.
All seminarians – gay, straight and bisexual – need to learn how to intergrate their sexuality into a healthy spirituality. This will reduce maladaptive conduct of priests, particuarly those who would tend toward predatory behavior.
That sounds like what Donald Goergen was saying more than 30 years ago in “The Sexual Celibate”. It is based on a distortion of Freud that fallaciously assumes that affections for other people are always in some sense sexual. As I’ve said before, I have many friends who are women. I’m sexually attracted to some but not all. And I have no less affection for those to whom I’m not sexually attracted.
The notion of integrating sexuality into celibacy is nonsense. Celibacy requires the complete suppression of sexual impulse.
frjim4321 says:
cmw, you are refering to the 1.5 to 3.0% of priests who are the perpetrators that we know of . . . the sexual abuse of a minor is not “having sex with somebody.” If most of the priests who cost the church $3B were right handed, would you remove all right handed men from the seminaries?
You think that’s analogical? That was some education you received at seminary. It was not only deficient in Catholic theology, but it also didn’t teach you to think. [STOW THAT. Stick to issues not to personal remarks.]
The real tragedy of the men and women in (and out of) uniform who die is when they die in mortal sin…which is what homosexuality (and adultery someone mentioned earlier, and of course many other sins) is. Although of course very sad, a soldier dying for his country is noble…but that nobility only comes if it was also virtuous. Can we judge a man’s soul? Of course not. And I am not either. But sin is sin. And it cannot ever be approved of. Hell is real. Our duty is to get to heaven, and help everyone else do so as well. To approve of a sinful lifestyle, in and out of the military or priesthood, only helps more souls not gain eternal life. A priest’s whole life is given specifically for the salvation of souls. If a man doesn’t care about sin and God’s attitude towards it, then he really need not become a priest.
I believe having female altar serves are part of this whole mess, too.
Picking up on Tom Ryan’s post, one thing that has occurred to me with regard to this issue is the effect it might have on the traditional support for the military among conservative Christian families, both evangelical and Catholic. Many such families are proud of having a tradition of several generations serving their country in the military. As a result of the open service of homosexuals in the military, might we see a situation develop where conservative Christian families not only no longer encourage their sons (and daughters) to serve in the military, but actually discourage them from doing so, on the grounds of conscience and religious belief? If that happens, will the families of those who support this and similar changes step up and volunteer to serve in the military? Somehow I doubt it.
albinus1 said: “Many such families are proud of having a tradition of several generations serving…but actually discourage them from doing so, on the grounds of conscience and religious belief?”
——————
I’m a fifth generation Naval Officer and I am not encouraging my sons to follow in my path.
Having been in a major Catholic religious order from 1991 to 1999, I can attest to the fact that homosexual priests who were “out” were as much of a destructive force as those who were “in denial”.
The “out” priests were destructive in their flaunting of unchastity, defiance of legitimate Church authority and spurning of Church tradition & liturgical practice. These men, some of whom were my religious superiors, cultivated unhealthy relationships with their students and younger men in formation. Their conduct has since been brought to light by the abuse scandal.
Furthermore, these men ostracized the “straight” men – because those who supported traditional Church teaching adhered to a belief system that condemned the corrupt men’s actions.
We lived in constant fear of these men, who held the approval of our ordination. Some uf us, such as myself, could not longer endure life in a system gone insane.
I saw a corrupt cabal of men do their best to destroy a centuries old religious order from the inside. We were all traumatized by it – and some of us still are.
I’ve been given a ’ cross ‘ it is known in our culture by the term transgender, it is a disorder, the cause is uncertain as is same-sex attraction, there is no cure for either of these defects. What I’m about to reveal the vast majority of you won’t believe but it did happen all the same.
Was looking for a way to legitimize my existence without mutilating my body into a pseudo woman and thought the priesthood would do that for me, during discernment we were kneeling in front of the Blessed Sacrament in prayer when I heard a voice ( the Lord’s voice ) HE said in a disapproving tone “ Why are you here ? ”
I made the mistake of trying to fit GOD into my agenda, my rationalization being well if The Creator made me this way then I should be suitable for service of any kind including Holy Orders, ( borrowed this from a ’gay’ priest when I was dealing with same-sex attraction issues) obviously this was and is a fallacy and thank GOD that it was revealed to me.
Would I have made a “good” priest? Yes as far as mortals looking on but in the opinion of the One who truly counts you now have the answer in the event you were wondering.
Please pray for me and all those who have similar ‘crosses ‘ we need compassion not distain; my heart goes out to all priests bearing these types of disorders and did not contribute to the sexual abuse scandal in our church and remain celibate, may you do the “ right thing “; to all those who did contribute and are not celibate may Almighty GOD have mercy on your soul.
You think that’s analogical? That was some education you received at seminary. It was not only deficient in Catholic theology, but it also didn’t teach you to think. [STOW THAT. Stick to issues not to personal remarks.]
Actually, it was an indictment of his seminary formation not of him. My guess is that Fr Jim, like so many other priests I have met, went to seminary in good faith. What followed was being cheated out of even minimal priestly formation. There was a time I thought this was only an American problem, but my years in Rome, living with priests from about 20 different nations, made me realize that it is a world wide situation.
Two important points. Firstly, Obama wants the draft. When he was running for Senator in Illinois, he gave more than one speech which revealed this desire on his part. I followed this stance of his. He has never given it up. He said the army was too full of the poor and minorities-a gross overstatement. He wants and will get a draft, if he stays as president.
Secondly, I know from personal experience that some seminaries are still accepting openly homosexual men into the seminary. When I tried to point this out to both the administration and the local bishop, I was pushed aside by two answers. From the Administrator, “So what if these men are homosexuals?” And, basically, shut up…And from the Bishop, if they were not “his” boys, he would not do anything about it, although I did not get past the chancellor at the time, who was either quoting the Bishop, or making a call himself. This all happened in recent history. I tried.
Until other lay people step up and help stop this acceptance, it will continue. And unless potus is voted out, we shall have his draft.
justMe,
Bless you – that is a heavy cross to bear. Someone in our family has the same difficulty, obviously it’s not the same as having it oneself but we have some understanding from listening. Prayers.
Frjim and those who concur –
We already have an example of a church that has adopted precisely the reasoning and arguments that you advocate.
The Episcopal Church. It is bleeding membership and surviving only on the endowments and contributions of those long dead and gone. The ordination of women and aggressively “out” homosexuals has snowballed into a wholesale dismantling and abandonment of Christian doctrine (including such basic aspects as the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and even the existence of God. They are even by and large all right with priests, with parishes, being Pagans and Muslims. I say by and large because the Muslim priestess’s ordinary eventually suspended her. After a huge public outcry.)
In other words, where this sort of thinking leads is to Unitarians with fancy vestments. But with no congregations. Is that really where you want the Catholic Church to go?
Supertradmum says:
Two important points. Firstly, Obama wants the draft. When he was running for Senator in Illinois, he gave more than one speech which revealed this desire on his part. I followed this stance of his. He has never given it up. He said the army was too full of the poor and minorities-a gross overstatement. He wants and will get a draft, if he stays as president.
I doubt that he will get a draft–Congress must pass it.
On the other hand, I think that Bush43 and now Obama have seriously abused the Reserves and National Guard. I think it should be federal law that if any NG or Reserve unit is deployed out of the US or activated for more than 6 mos in the US, then the draft should automatically begin.
I have no disdain for those who struggle mightily with these issues. Those who strive to do right are my heroes.
There are, however, wolves in sheep’s clothing who leech off a system that demands little & expects even less. They have embedded themselves in institutions where they are provided for, and take what they need while corroding the body from the inside.
God will not be mocked. They are sinners in the hands of an angry God – and the Lake of Fire awaits.
robtbrown,
We do not want nor need a draft. Many countries with standing armies have never had drafts or selective service. A volunteer army is the most powerful army. What we need is pride. A young person should feel proud to be in the services, and I believe it is a “call”, like any call to a job, career or vocation. Not everyone is suited to be a soldier. Is that not the point of this entire blog entry here?
Obama probaby wants the draft so he can insist that young people come under the federal government’s power for a few years to be re-educated uniformly. Sort of like an extension to public school, and I hope we all know how that works.
Besides, he may see it as a racial issue. There are a lot of blacks in the armed forces currently, although that may change with the DADT repeal. And soon there will be more gays, and fewer straights.
catholicmidwest,
I think the Nazi youth groups are a good example. My dad, who was in the Battle of the Bulge, told us that towards the end of the war, the Americans were shooting 15 and 16 year olds in the field, as Germany had run out of troops and were putting the Nazi youth into the army.
My students, who are in the army, have decided not to re-enlist because of the repeal. This is a crisis, which is yet to unravel.
Agreed. In 6 months, boot camp may look like martian brothel.
justMe,
I believe what you say and I rejoice in your choosing
the’ right ‘ thing to do. You and all those carrying their
cross this day are in my prayers. May God bless you.
The notion being advanced that it is best for those with deep-seated homosexual inclination or who are supportive of the so-called gay culture to not pursue a priestly vocation is likely a measured response to the fact that for a long time many seminaries, dioceses and religious orders rejected good and solid candidates who did not present as gay enough. This is documented and also borne out by personal anecdotal experience. To the faithful though, whether a priest is one thing or another with respect to their sexual identity is probably as they say on the internet, TMI. I don’t doubt that some who are out as active in their sexuality might have a certain following, but, when that occurs it is often more about that individual’s cult of personality than about the genuine salvific welfare of those being led.
robtbrown: On the other hand, I think that Bush43 and now Obama have seriously abused the Reserves and National Guard. I think it should be federal law that if any NG or Reserve unit is deployed out of the US or activated for more than 6 mos in the US, then the draft should automatically begin.
I am a third-genreration career Army officer (now retired) — what you have stated is what I have thought for a looooong time. We have an ersatz (or de facto?) “draft” with the continued misuse of the National Guard and Reserves. I really like Robert Heinlin’s idea (from the novel Starship Troopers) that in order to vote, one must have served in the military or other similar civil service (but I disagree with his notion of not being able to vote while serving — since it would be a conflict of interest).
There is nothing wrong with a draft of military (or civil) service after high school or college. I think that sort of service would benefit all generations.
–Guy Power
Benedetta, you said, “The notion being advanced that it is best for those with deep-seated homosexual inclination or who are supportive of the so-called gay culture to not pursue a priestly vocation is likely a measured response to the fact that for a long time many seminaries, dioceses and religious orders rejected good and solid candidates who did not present as gay enough.”
Uh, no. Homosexuals shouldn’t enter seminaries because they don’t belong there. Read:
“He must, in principle, be suitable for marriage and able to exercise fatherhood over his children,” wrote Monsignor Anatrella. Because the priest acts in the “person of Christ,” Anatrella said that the Church calls only “men mature in their masculine identity.”
…“The Church has the right to refuse holy orders to those who do not have the requested attitudes or who, in one way or another, are not in harmony with the teaching it has received from its divine master,” he added, saying that the homosexual tendency was actually a “counterindication to the call to holy orders.”
It’s written in perfectly grammatical English. For those who have poor reading comprehension, I’m sorry you have problems. But that doesn’t change what the text says.
Tim, you said, “I have known many priests with homosexual inclinations, but only in those who were ‘in denial’ had it become a destructive force.”
Yeah, for them. How about for the rest of us who have to put up with their antics–lying their heads off and living in contradiction to the Gospel? (since they’re not living in “denial” as you put it)
A few tangential comments: First, St. John Bosco taught, “Puer sicut mulier.” So, those 80%+ male victims were possibly not molested necessarily by homosexuals . Second, classical religious discipline frowned upon “particular friendships” in the seminary and religious life. “Either love all equally or love none at all.” However, the pop psychology of affirming relationships seem to have dismissed this resulting into those seminary romances. Hopefully, the formation of priests nowadays have done away with that lovyduby mindset. (I wonder if that’s not creeping in the USAF nowadays. But think of the new soaps that will come out of this. ;D )
rakesvines,
Gay is as gay does.
A man might deny he’s homosexual, but after he’s molested a boy, it’s hard to say how he can deny it. It is what it is.
Perhaps a man who molests boys also has thoughts about girls. That only makes him BI and I’m pretty sure that’s not any better than just being homosexual. Just more confusing and more likely to see people as objects to be had, IMHO.
@catholicmidwest. Maybe so. I am not an expert in that subject. “Puer sicut mulier” means boys are like women. Pre-pubescent boys without the secondary characteristics look like girls. And in an all male setting, an overly sexed dudad might use boys as a substitute. So, they were really straight but were unable to get a girl. A know a priest who alledgedly did something nasty to a boy that could have been myself – but for the grace of God. (We were elementary boys who were planning to enter the high school seminary. We were then interviewed individually by the rector. I never went because of what the boy before me revealed happened to him.) The priest has left the order and is now married to a woman. So, he must be straight.
Not necessarily, rakesvines. Some people are bi, carrying on 2 lives, one inside marriage and one out. Some gay men marry women to cover up their problem, prove to their relatives, save face, etc. Sometimes it lasts and sometimes it doesn’t, depending on what the woman wants out of marriage, how much she catches onto, how much she’ll tolerate, etc.
To your earlier point: Sex with boys is still male-to-male sex, whether the boys are soft like girls or not. You may not know this, but homosexuals classify each other according to stereotypes, and this hankering for pre-teenage boys is one of them, just like “bear” is another and S&M is another. Homosexual is as homosexual does. Male-to-male sex is the act that makes a homosexual a homosexual. That’s what this is about. If a man has sex with both genders, he’s bisexual. That’s hardly news. It’s the obvious definition, for Pete’s sake.
catholicmidwest, Was that swipe intended for me about the reading comprehension part? At any rate, I don’t disagree with you. I’m only commenting that we wouldn’t likely be having this conversation in the first place had not a gay subculture developed in many places that in fact was so overwhelmingly domineering that it excluded not just anyone who didn’t accept it but even anyone who didn’t similarly so engage. From a purely sociological perspective, if the Church itself depends on married people with families to continue, it is not at all pastoral or representative of its base to permit a gay subculture to predominate in the clergy. Examining the commercial popular products of American gay subculture itself, it is easy to recognize that there is precious little to offer to developing families, there is much hostility towards all faiths, and generally a difficulty with the concept of authentic respect towards women and mothers. I do agree that there is a need given the subculture itself for the Church to reach out with apostolates such as Courage yet the sheer numbers there wouldn’t in itself support a predominantly gay clergy either.
benedetta, you said, “From a purely sociological perspective, if the Church itself depends on married people with families to continue, it is not at all pastoral or representative of its base to permit a gay subculture to predominate in the clergy. Examining the commercial popular products of American gay subculture itself, it is easy to recognize that there is precious little to offer to developing families, there is much hostility towards all faiths, and generally a difficulty with the concept of authentic respect towards women and mothers. I do agree that there is a need given the subculture itself for the Church to reach out with apostolates such as Courage yet the sheer numbers there wouldn’t in itself support a predominantly gay clergy either.”
On most of these statements I agree with you. It doesn’t make sense for the church to allow the clergy to become a “gay profession.” There is precious little in the gay subculture that is good for families since that subculture is antagonistic to women and to family life in general. No method used for gathering gays together has any hope of filling churches or keeping the church going in any manner.
But I’m very sure trying to insert gays to keep the church going isn’t the motivation for what we’ve seen. In fact, I believe that it’s just opposite. Some people set out to kill, weaken or alter the church because they didn’t like hearing that they can’t do whatever they want, and this was just one of the methods that have been tried. Only this method won’t work either. Neither will any of the other strategies, as butt-ugly as they’ve been.
On priesthood; worth reading by George Buddleighton
http://www.brandsmareview.net/brans81.html#11
http://pblosser.blogspot.com/2010/09/married-priesthood-why-not.html
and my dear midwestcatholic:
“…. It’s the obvious definition, for Pete’s sake” may I respond, TMI for Pete’s sake!!
Most of us are cognizant of much of what you posted //”… is the act that makes a homosexual a homosexual”// but similarly don’t need or want to know //”…You may not know this, but…”// much of what you posted. Who needs to know that??
I don’t advocate entrenching my head in the sand nor do I down play the issue. I’ve read Goodbye Good Men, our diocese sends seminarians to Mount Angel and I pray for vocations constantly but as I skimmed some of the post I had 2 reactions. One- I wanted to go poke out my mind’s eye and two- I kept thinking of St Paul’s words, about thinking on whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely…
catholicmidwest: You know I used to think that some of the forces at work were just innocuous “dreamers” but now after what I have seen I absolutely believe that some, within the church, have more of a “death-wish”, do not at all wish to see the faith prosper, and would rather be a part of its demise if they cannot live to see their picayune demands satisfied.
Benedetto, you said, “I absolutely believe that some, within the church, have more of a “death-wish”, do not at all wish to see the faith prosper, and would rather be a part of its demise if they cannot live to see their picayune demands satisfied.
I agree with you there 100%. A perfect example: People who yell and complain about the priest shortage and then do their best to freeze out the “rigid orthodox” ones. They really don’t care about any priest shortage so much as they’re trying to replace what we have with what they want.
If Catholics want to prohibit homosexuals from entering their seminaries or the ranks of their clergy, that’s their prerogative. I can tell you of a few chaste, competent priests that would have eliminated. And I think without the homosexuals, the seminary I attended in PA would have had to hasten its closing. But if it’s your religious conviction that homosexual orientation disqualifies someone from clerical ministry (religious life too?) as a celibate, that is, as I say, your prerogative as believers in a God who says that’s how things should be.
And I understand that several priests in the sex abuse scandals were sexually active homosexuals, and that many more exclusively picked boys for their victim. That’s at odds with the general culture in which girls are overwhelming more likely to be abused than boys. There may be multiple reasons for that anomaly in your church and I won’t go into that here.
But eliminating those who identify or can be identified as homosexual will not be sufficient protection against child sexual molestation by your clergy. I wish you folks would focus on dealing with the pathologies associated with pedophilia and ephebophilia and keep those people out of your seminaries and clergy and religious communities and positions of trust and authority over children. That’s what will protect children.