Double-Shot of Homosems
First off, the widespread suspicions that B16 isn't one for Gay-Away (i.e. banning celibate homosexuals from seminary admission) are seemingly confirmed....
Andrew Sullivan reports:
Moving right along, Jim Remsen of my hometown Inquirer failed to check his own paper's archives. In running the wire story on O'Brien's emphatic comments in support of Gay-Away, Remsen said that
The Inky, itself, reported five days after Caro Giustino's appointment here that "Rigali has gone on record saying he does not believe a homosexual orientation disqualifies a man for ordination, provided he remains chaste."
And that's on top of hewing to a single standard in a March 2002 interview with the beloved St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
Sorry, bigots -- I'm with my Cardinal-Archbishop on this one.
-30-
Andrew Sullivan reports:
[I]n 1986, the Church officially rebutted the idea that gay men, let alone gay priests, cannot be expected to be celibate, let alone molest children. The notion that all gay men are sexually compulsive was, in the words of then-Cardinal Ratzinger, an "unfounded and demeaning assumption." That "unfounded and demeaning assumption" is now church policy. The 1986 document also proclaimed thatScore 10 for sanity, 20 for Ratzi, and -30 for Ed O'Brien.the human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation.
Moving right along, Jim Remsen of my hometown Inquirer failed to check his own paper's archives. In running the wire story on O'Brien's emphatic comments in support of Gay-Away, Remsen said that
Cardinal Justin Rigali, the archbishop here since 2003, was not available yesterday to discuss his views.Jim, why discuss when we have -- TA-DA! -- a paper trail.... In case anyone's curious, it's called good reporting.
The Inky, itself, reported five days after Caro Giustino's appointment here that "Rigali has gone on record saying he does not believe a homosexual orientation disqualifies a man for ordination, provided he remains chaste."
And that's on top of hewing to a single standard in a March 2002 interview with the beloved St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
The church has never tolerated, we certainly will not tolerate, any homosexual conduct on the part of any priest, just as we would not tolerate any heterosexual conduct outside of celibacy on the part of priests.Nothing about Gay-Away there, only an equal litmus test of expressive conduct. And if Rigali, King of Caution, is not skittish about (chaste) homosems, then why need anyone else be?
Sorry, bigots -- I'm with my Cardinal-Archbishop on this one.
-30-
posted by Rocco Palmo at 19:21
6 Comments:
There are a number of considerations in this debate. How do enforce such a provision? Penis volume tests or MRI while showing pictures? Demanding manifestations of conscience? Close up and in your face observation during seminary training? The use of intrusive psychological testing? Demanding a declaration of heterosexuality sworn on the Bible? The climate of fear, the probability of blackmail, the demeaning of someone's natural human rights are not outcomes that, I believe, Benedict XVI would be happy with. (Think Pius XI and the anti-Modernist push. Think Action Francais.) My best guess is that what we will see is a compromise that targets already "out" older gay men who have been living a certain lifestyle before applying for the seminary, rather than driving sexually ambiguous 20 y.o's into suicidal depression and confusion. Well, I hope so. The Law of Unintended Consequences bites hard.
"The climate of fear, the probability of blackmail, the demeaning of someone's natural human rights are not outcomes that, I believe, Benedict XVI would be happy with. (Think Pius XI and the anti-Modernist push. Think Action Francais.)"
Not to mention the strange criteria by which fanatical witch-hunting laity or paranoid vocation directors will decide that a seminarian is "homosexual" or "suspect of homosexuality" based on trivial things like interest in classical music, drama, or even good liturgy. And pray tell how does one tell the difference between "sexually ambiguous 20 y.o's" and skinny waifs? And, if a seminarian is preposessed about his handsome looks, is he a homosexual, a star LC seminarian, or has Archbishop Sheen/Alberto Cutie media star ambitions? The entire endeavor is absurd and ridiculous, aside from Andrew Sullivan's stated objections which are, for the most part, on point.
"Behind the "we're OK, even though we're Gravely Disordered" noise here is the "we're ENTITLED to Ordination" mindset, not coincidentally shared by the Wacko Feminazis."
Or shared by pious cassocked-closet sem-wannabes shopping their wares to any diocese desperate enough to take 'em in.
George, "divinization" is hardly required.
Normal adults are able to discern the signs without much difficulty.
If you have problems with the process of discerning, simply ask your wife, or any of your children.
Witch hunt, my patoot.
Jimmy, you'll have to read up on it all by yourself.
Suffice it to say that I don't need to see a pink skirt.
dad29 reminds me of the old anti-Semitic Mayor of Vienna, Karl Lueger, "I decide who is a Jew."
Post a Comment
<< Home