The contorted thinking behind the Vatican’s decision on seminarians is raising questions all along the political spectrum (other, of course, than the reactionary anti-gay activists).
Conservative columnist, William F. Buckley Jr., in an article called The Vatican and Gay Problems analyzes the position of the Vatican. He does not answer the base question of whether gay people are intrinsically gay. This question does not need answer for him to point out the inherent problems with the Vatican’s proclamation:
One of the planted axioms of sexual equality is that homosexual inclinations are congenital. One can be skeptical about this assertion while still granting the point that someone who engages in homosexual acts at age 14 may, at age 24, still harbor gay proclivities.
In other words, you don’t have to believe that a person is intrinsically or immutably gay to believe that they have same-sex longing. And the Vatican’s position is that a person who has these longing cannot be a seminarian. Buckley observes that simply not fooling around for three years (which the Vatican allows for those who are not gay) does not address the underlying issue as to whether the attractions are present.
As most who have reviewed this new proclamation have observed, the ban extends from sexually active gay people to include any person who has same sex desires, regardless of the sexual history. Thus an man who as a teen who messed around experimentally with every guy in sight is acceptable; a virginal gay man is not.
As a side note, I find it interesting that the Catholic Church’s declaration would prohibit nearly all persons who identify as ex-gay. As long as the “homosexual leanings” are present, the Church would not allow you to become a priest. And nearly all ex-gay ministries now concede that same-sex attractions may well remain present always.
Buckley puts his finger on the conundrum: Is the seminary applicant willing to tell the truth?
This question is far more relevant than it might be to the ordinary employee who faced with the same question might feel no moral obligation to appease homophobic inquiries not into one’s actions but into one’s makeup:
Is he willing to tell the truth?
If so, under the new ruling he will be denied the practice of his vocation. If, on the other hand, he is willing to deceive, he will perhaps proceed to ordination, but he will have shipwrecked the integrity of his calling, which denies the right of any priest to conceal the truth and ignore sinfulness.
Thus you have acceptance of a deceiver – who might be willing to continue the Church’s pattern of hiding and covering abuse – but exclude an honest gay man who might live a life of abstinence and never swerve from his position of moral honesty and clarity.
Buckley concludes that this proclamation will cause a more pragmatic problem for the Church:
Most eyes trained on the Vatican letter are looking at its effect in the United States, for the piquant reason that sexual activity here is almost studiously unregulated, yet the Protestant ethic is a cloud that never quite dematerializes, from sea to shining sea. There is, besides, a quite desperate shortage of priests, a decimation of whose numbers would surely result from a hard enforcement of the new document.
This does not bode well for the Church.
One issue that Buckley did not address, and I’ve not see anyone yet identify, is that this ban also prohibits “…those who … support the so-called gay culture.” This would include any straight seminarians who are sympathetic to gay persons and would want to offer a non-judgmental attitude. This is not necessarily new to the Church as it has recently opposed such efforts to reach out with a very heavy hand.
But what this Pope is saying is that not only will the Church be anti-gay now, but he is ensuring that his predecessors for decades to come will also be staunchly anti-gay. This position is further illustrated by the Church’s letter firing any seminary instructors with “homosexual tendencies” that are already serving. The expectation is that this will eventually include all priest so that Father Mykel Judge, were he still alive, would find himself unable to perform the services for which New Yorkers revere him.
This seems to me to be a proposal that will either reverse the course of a generation that has been moving consistently towards acceptance of gay persons, or will (along with positions taken on women and on contraception) cause a generation to move further away from the Church as an authority on matters of morality.
“… or will (along with positions taken on women and on contraception) cause a generation to move further away from the Church as an authority on matters of morality.”
It already has happened here in Québec. Catholic French-Canadians were the most churchgoing people in the entire world, even surpassing the Irish. That all changed after the Quiet Revolution. Now Montréal and most regions of Québec are graveyards of magnificent cathedrals and monumental churches; parishoners and priests are in decline (although Haitian and African immigrant priests have taken over some churches, the amount of parishoners keep declining even more) and some of the churches have been severly affected by entropy.
In my point of view, this is already happening throughout the Western world, including Latin America. For Ireland, Québec and Latin-American countries where Catholicism is/was more central and fervent than other catholic and even protestant countries, the decaying of the church is even at a faster rate. The same is also happening in some Othrodox Eastern European countries. Anyhow, that’s how I perceive it.
Xeno, what you say is true. What has happened in Quebec and in Ireland, has also happened in Western Europe (although a bit earlier) and in Poland, which was overwhelmingly a country of practicing Catholics, even under communism. Today, attendance at Sunday mass is vastly diminished, except for mostly elderly parishioners, and a few younger ones.
Here in the US, the number of parishes closed far exceeds the number of parishes consecrated each year. Look at Archdioces like Boston and Chicago, which in the first half of the 20th century had HUGE Catholic populations.
The Roman Catholic church is losing its relevance in the industrialized world, which is where it has also derived most of its revenue. In Europe, the church is supported by state subsidies, at least for now. In the US, however, as this decline continues, it will seriously begin to affect the financial ability of the church to continue as it has in the past.
The only other possible option would be a massive schism with Rome to bring the church in the US into the 21st century.
Phil & Xeno, the phenomenon of the demise of the RCCi has been observed worldwide. They are fighting a rear guard action not only in Central and South America (mostly against evangelical protestants, but also in Africa against creeping Islam and (to some extent) Anglicans.
BTW, regarding my last post, the observation had nothing to do with gay issues.
As a side note, I find it interesting that the Catholic Church’s declaration would prohibit nearly all persons who identify as ex-gay. As long as the “homosexual leanings” are present, the Church would not allow you to become a priest. And nearly all ex-gay ministries now concede that same-sex attractions may well remain present always.
But that’s been the position of the Catholic Church for a while – IIRC that homosexuality was “perceived as a given” to the person who is gay, and that it is basically immutable. That is why Courage, the Catholic group for gays, does not have an “ex-gay” focus – they don’t try to change your feelings, just remain celibate.
The Church does not go all the way and say that homosexuality is in-born or genetic, but they have come pretty darn close in the past. Which means the Church is now in the position of saying that God created inherently deficient human beings – those of us who are gay. If we do not choose to be gay, and the orientation is basically unchangeable, but that same orientation also means we cannot have “correct” relationships with either men or women, then we are “broken” human beings who cannot be fixed. But that is in direct contradiction to the Catholocism I learned as a child, which held that everyone can grow to fullness in God.
‘Deficient’?
‘Afflicted’?
‘Intrinsically disordered’?
‘Inherently immature’?
Racists, misogynists, xenophobes, homophobists, and other snobs…
have merely switched targets. But the same targets get gobsmacked.
Ignorance and fearmongering is the disease that’s intrinsically immature, disordered, and deficient and dangerous.
And oh so persistent.
It is tiring, defending your humanity from harm, from indignity. It’s a constant battle just to show your own compassion and patience in the face of such an insurmountable disease as cowardly ignorance.
And those who have no respect for self determination, while cry out if they just SUSPECT their own is compromised.
The balance is all off. The moral vision seriously muddied and being damaged by conceit.
The same conceit that troubled all the other aforementioned groups.
And still no one is learning from the damaged caused already by that conceit.
Isn’t that in itself a serious offense to Creation?
Minor point CPT Doom, but maybe not. The Catholicism I learned as a child was that we can grow to fullness in God, DESPITE our imperfections.
But you also have to remember that this document that the church has published applies to candidates for the priesthood, which automatically excludes women and married men, throw in incelibate heterosexual and homosexual men, and you’re left with a very small pool of candidates. It’s really no wonder they’re so critically short of priests.
Add to the mix that those who do make it through seminary will likely live alone, nearly all but the largest and most affluent parishes have no more than one priest, who lives in a rectory (if one is provided) by himself. Years ago, many parishes had at least two priests, sometimes even three or four.
Also, the pay isn’t very good, with the vow of poverty thing, and the retirement plan leaves a lot to be desired 😉
The RCC may eventually end up with sacramental technicians, like the rabbis who kosher up a food factory. One priest consecrates sometime during the week, and Hosts are delivered to parishes for distribution by layfolk.
Pity the poor guys who end up with nothing to do but consecrate all day, working in sweat shop conditions over vats of hosts, with forklifts moving all around him. (said with irony, not disrespect)
I get your drift though. Deacons can perform all or most of the sacraments nowadays (and I believe they can say Mass), and laypersons can handle the eucharist. Can they hear confessions?
That’s a really excellent commentary on the issue. I see this as more of the same. What was it someone here said, “the longer the Catholic Church insists on these archaic restrictions for their priesthood, the more people with sexual issues will use it for a kind of “super ex-gay program” (my paraphrase)
This pope is unlikely to consider as still open a question that his predecessor so decisively declared closed. Which leaves open the possibility of miraculous changes in extra-theological practices, which is the work of the Lord.
This is what everyone above seems to recognize is already happening. It’s up the the Catholic Church if they want to be relevant in the future or not.
David
In reference to CPT_Doom’s statement, if being gay is unchangeable, and being gay is a one way trip to hell, then does that mean I was born damned?
I’m still waiting on David Morrison at Sed Contra actually…Considering, in the past, David has said that he would find it ‘impossible’ to believe that his church would exclude a person merely for being gay — and now they have done just that — sed contra remains very quiet on the subject. Perhaps he’s attempting to digest the indigestable.David: (I know you read here from time to time): remaining in a domestic relationship with the love of your life, but not having sex as per The Rules is one thing — but… at which point does contortion become distortion? Your input — here, or at sed contra, would be appreciated. Personally :)My own take: how’d have thunk that Islam didn’t have a monopoly on out-of-touch, abusive and dangerous clerics??? Wow. I’m stunned — the Pope lives outside a real World.Let’s recall: an archbishop who ‘vanished’ from Boston because he protected child molestors then goes on to lead Mass for a Pope’s funeral… but ANYONE gay is now declared guilty as suspected.It’s all about dirty politics, without question. And $. Did I mention Opus Dei?
I’m still waiting on David Morrison at Sed Contra actually…
I am not. If Morrison wants to eschew homosex, that is his business. But when he and his co-conspirators wish to deny me equal civil rights, that makes his rants my business.
On the topic of the post, I’m surprised that Buckley is still alive. He was largely brain-dead 20 years ago. Somehow, he got public television to carry his mediocre program a couple of years ago, although I will acknowledge that public television in the US has generally been little more than a whore ever since its inception.
Raj,I was being sarcastic. Maybe you’ve been in Germany too long :)(a country, and people, I hasten to add, that I fell in love with — who can object to a people that think a sensible adult SHOULD be able to stand and have a beer and a sanger while waiting on a platform for a train??? Mmmm, Weiswurst in a snowstorm…)My real theory, no it’s a guess, is that David Morrison will find yet another reason to fully support — or reason his way out of the hypocrisy by — an institution that doesn’t want him, hates him, thinks he is a pervert, declares he cannot be trusted around children, calls him an “intrinsic evil”… and yet he stays because, well you know — he only beats me because he loves me.Some people are into that, you know…
Perhaps the Pope is trying to challenge the culture of proclaiming a gay identity (within the Church at least). The celibate seminarian who doesn’t feel the need to utter the words “I am gay” won’t be troubled by these rules. If celibate heterosexual priests started saying they had an adulterous sexual orientation, declared they were born Swingers and attended swinger social events, the Church might have to exclude them as well.
I’m not backing the Vatican on this decision. It does seem rather an odd and unfair ruling. I would like to read more about the reasoning behind the decision.
I’m surprised that Buckley is still alive. He was largely brain-dead 20 years ago.
That’s an odd opinion. I’ve noticed even those on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum tend to admire his reasoning.
As for PBS, I don’t care for the idea of any state sponsored media as it all tends to end up as you described. I do admit to enjoying NPR on occassion.
David
1630r said
Let’s hope you live to be 400 years old…More pratically, in this day and age is saying “Yeah, I’m gay” any different to saying “I am a homosexual”?Gawd, if they ever get into the business of only employing men who are prepared to declare “I love cock, but that doesn’t mean I’m Gay(c)” … they will be full of liars, or lunatics, or exgays (or, mutually, all of the afore mentioned). So, maybe no change there.Frankly, they can exclude gay men if they feel so inclined. That will be their loss. I’m more concerned about the paedophiles they protect and enable. And about the people listening to them.
ReasonAble at December 4, 2005 10:55 AM
I said: I’m surprised that Buckley is still alive. He was largely brain-dead 20 years ago.
You said: That’s an odd opinion.
Um, not really. We were laughing at his antics on his Firing Line program on PBS over 20 years ago. In his commentaries on the PBS’s horrible series regarding Evelyn Waugh’s book Brideshead Revisited, in the 1980s, he totally ignored the homosexual aspect of the book, and merely discussed the roman catholic aspect. Of course, Buckley is catholic, and when we subscribed to his publication National Review, the catholic centricism of his became quite clear.
In his commentaries on the PBS’s horrible series regarding Evelyn Waugh’s book Brideshead Revisited, in the 1980s, he totally ignored the homosexual aspect of the book, and merely discussed the roman catholic aspect.
This equates to “brain-dead”?
David
David:
‘This equates to “brain-dead”?’
It pretty much does if Buckley’s capable to do a series on a book, which homosexuality is an important aspect, and completely ignore the subject. I’d say that’s proof enough that the man has a brain lobe damaged or even missing.
It pretty much does if Buckley’s capable to do a series on a book, which homosexuality is an important aspect, and completely ignore the subject. I’d say that’s proof enough that the man has a brain lobe damaged or even missing.
He can be a jerk when he wants to (like many others), but I’ve found his reasoning on any particular issue to be impressive. You would have to ask him why he avoided that aspect of the book, but I think brain-dead is more likely an opinion on his ideology than his mental ability.
David
Re: “Deacons can perform all or most of the sacraments nowadays (and I believe they can say Mass), and laypersons can handle the eucharist. Can they hear confessions?”
Deacons cannot say the mass, which means they cannot consecrate the host. They can, however, preach the homily.
Of the seven sacraments, here’s who can do what:
Baptism — Deacons (and in a pinch, anybody) can do it. Most non-Catholic baptisms are recognized.
Confession — Only priests and bishops.
Communion — Only priests can consecrate, anybody can distribute (I’m simplifying here)
Confirmation — A bishop or his representative.
Matrimony — priests or deacons (as long as the wedding isn’t a full mass)
Holy Orders — bishops only
Last Rites — I’m not sure. It includes confession, which would mean that only priests can do it.
This is like watching a train wreck. One facet emerging is that gay catholics will need to evaluate their place in the church. Which seems very much to require the gay priests who give them wiggle room on their religious practices. Found an excellent meditation on this by a gay priest, maybe a former priest, not exactly clear what the status is. Anyway, there is a quote which I feel really illumniates this situation.
https://www.jamesalison.co.uk/texts/eng23.html
“The improper way is to pretend in public that you go along with the teaching while in fact, and in your private life, you do not. The result of going down this route has been many of us encouraging people to join the seminary and priesthood just so long as they become inducted into playing the sort of game that too many of us have been playing for too long. That is, letting it be perfectly clear off the record that being gay is fine, just so long as we don’t say in public that we’re gay, and just so long as we agree not to challenge in public the teaching that being gay is an objective disorder.
Well, treating people in this way is to do something terrible to them: it makes them live a lie as a condition for becoming a minister of the Gospel. And it is to do something terrible to the people who we are supposed to be serving: it creates a clerical caste which has its own, tolerant rules and structures for life within the club, the price for whose maintenance is that its gay members agree not to challenge those who are publicly harsh and intolerant about matters gay whenever these surface in the public arena. In other words, the Catechism teaching is for the plebs, while we have our own hidden teaching, our own safe space, for the elite.”
DaleA:
Train wreck indeed. Thanks for sharing the quote.
“Well, treating people in this way is to do something terrible to them: it makes them live a lie as a condition for becoming a minister of the Gospel.
And as for the people in the pews, it does terrible spiritual damage to them for the same reasons. Speaking from experience.
Perhaps this is part of the reason that the RC is experiencing declines throughout the developed world. The Protestant churches of northern Europe are even further along. I recall reading an account of an Anglican mass in the cathedral at Canterbury. The author noted that the only way to reach an attendance of 25 was to count the Japanese tourists taking pictures of the art work. The mainline churches in the US seem to be in the same boat. It looks like the fudegelicals are gowing, but this maz be a statistical illusion. They could just be siphoning off the more comitted members of other churches, who are double counted.
ReasonAble at December 4, 2005 04:11 PM
I said: In his commentaries on the PBS’s horrible series regarding Evelyn Waugh’s book Brideshead Revisited, in the 1980s, he totally ignored the homosexual aspect of the book, and merely discussed the roman catholic aspect.
You said: This equates to “brain-dead”?
Do you normally ignore part of a comment to which you are responding? That is fraudlent. I also referenced Buckley’s antics on his Public TV’s Firing Line series, which I watched until I got tired of his arrogant and pretentious antics.
BTW, it strikes me that Buckley was hired by CPB to do commentary on the RCC part of the series–Buckley was, of course, RCC. That is evident from his National Review, which was heavily RCC (we had a subscription to it for several years). It is surprising that CPB did not hire someone to also do a commentary on the gay aspect of the book. Actually, given CPB’s history, it isn’t surprising. CPB is a whore.
From a later post:
You said: He (Buckley) can be a jerk when he wants to (like many others), but I’ve found his reasoning on any particular issue to be impressive.
Um, as you wish. I have always found him to be something of a jackass (I’ll repeat “arrogant and pretentious”). Merely because someone can put on aires and get public TV to give him a TV series doesn’t mean that he is intelligent.
re Buckley and the brain dead debate:
There can be a tendency on certain peoples’ part to dismiss those with whom they disagree. For example instead of saying “I disagee with Schwarznegger’s explanation of why he had to veto gay marriage”, people might say “Schwarznegger is a homophobe”. Instead of saying “I disagree with Bush’s policies and think his agenda will be harmful to the Country and the World”, people might say “Bush is an idiot”.
These sort of statements reflect poorly on the person making them. Rather than diminish the one attacked, it makes the attacker seem as though they are unable to address real issues and instead have to resort to character assassination.
When the reader looks at what you say they know that Schwarznegger is not truly a homophobe (too much evidence to the contrary) and Bush is not truly an idiot (one can argue the level of his intelligence but he’s clearly not of sub-par intellect). So instead they realize that the speaker is simply reactionary and that they should not give too much weight to what he has to say.
If one insists that Bill Buckley is brain dead, and yet I see his columns and they appear lucid, I would want some pretty heavy evidence. Perhaps if you showed that his work is ghost written or that he’s been seen acting like Anna Nicole Smith in public you might convince me. But insead the examples offered are that he reviewed a book with a different focus than one might select and had a political opinion that was different than one might have.
The evidence provided does not support Bill Buckley being brain dead. However it might suggest that persons making such a claim are a bit reactionary and that they value their own opinions and biases highly and are not open to anyone who disagrees with them.
That may or may not be the case, but it’s worth considering.
Timothy, just consider the “brain-dead” comment a categorical rejection of what the target says, merely because he says it.
Just because the target has got himself something of a megaphone, as Buckley has, does not mean that it deserves respect. I have read much in Buckley’s magazine that is ridiculous, and much of Buckley’s old firing line was also ridiculous (it’s been a long time since that’s been on).
NRO–NR’s web-based affiliate–is also headed by some brain-dead people (Jonah Goldberg, whose only claim to fame is that he was the son of Lucianne Goldberg of Linda Tripp fame), John Derbyshire, Stanley Kurtz (who famously argued against same sex marriage because straight boys might be discouraged from marrying because they don’t want to watch out gay actors play leading men in movies–no joke), and other similarly brain-dead people.
I really do stand by my comment.
Buckley’s comments might sometimes be correct. But I wouldn’t give the comments much weight merely because he makes them.
Also, the pay isn’t very good, with the vow of poverty thing, and the retirement plan leaves a lot to be desired 😉
Minor point right back at you Phil – most priests are not required to take vows of poverty – nuns, sisters, friars/brothers all must, but not your typical parish priest (ours drove a Mercedes).
Does the ban apply to religious brothers and monks who are not priests? And to nuns? My local priest a few years ago, I knew him from dog walking, lived alone in a rectory designed to house 5 priests for the parish. He was pushing 80 at the time. He was trying to run a large parish with school and high school as well as tend to the spiritual needs of several thousand parishioners. On top of which, the parish was changing from an Italian American group into a poorer Mexican immigrant population. He was a very nice man who was totally overwhemed by the tasks before him. He passed away from exhaustion. This seems to be the story of most secular priests: they are expected to do the work that 5 of their predecessors did. My own understanding is that the priests at the parish level are under enormous stress. BTW, Father was a major buyer of Romantic Staffordshire ceramics. He left an enormous collection, worth into the hundreds of thousands.
I downloaded the document and read through it. The Instruction only applies to seminary candidates for the priesthood. It does not apply to non-priest monks, friars, or nuns, nor does it apply to currently ordained priests, although an accompanying letter says that gay priests should not work in seminaries.
From what I’ve read, the accompanying letter doesn’t carry the force of Canon Law. Neither does the Instruction, technically, if any part of it contradicts Canon Law. As I understand it, the Instruction is binding in the absence of Canon Law to the contrary. I don’t know the precise status of the accompanying letter.
raj
“…just consider the “brain-dead” comment a categorical rejection of what the target says, merely because he says it.
…
I really do stand by my comment.”
OK, fine. Now I’m fully informed of how much weight to give your statements or opinions. Thanks
Raj said:
…just consider the “brain-dead” comment a categorical rejection of what the target says, merely because he says it.
But I wouldn’t give the comments much weight merely because he makes them.
This attitude represents a creeping incivility in public discourse today. Even though each statement must be evaluated on it’s own merit, you make the blanket assumption that Buckley’s are “brain-dead” just because he makes them. That’s truly absurd. You definitely don’t make use of logic the way attorneys I have known do.
Posted by Timothy at December 5, 2005 04:24 PM
Well put and making a lot of sense. Unless we can debate facts and issues without using inflamatory character assasinations, we reduce our own effectiveness and the truth gets lost in a bunch of name calling and pointless argument.
David