McCoy on Formation
Good for McCoy.In the light of the recent Vatican document about gay priests, and attention in the visitation's Instrumentum Laboris to homosexuality, McCoy said the question of sexual maturity is more important than ever. He recently met with the 151 seminarians at the NAC to go over the Vatican document, he said, and to urge any who are struggling with sexual issues to bring it up in spiritual direction.
At the same time, McCoy insisted, it would be a mistake to allow the focus on sexuality to obscure other dimensions of "human formation," which he said are far more common stumbling blocks.
"A man who can't, or who refuses, to greet you with a 'good morning' can do more damage in a parish," McCoy said. "If he doesn't display readiness for compassion, if there's no affect, this is not a man who can build community."
As for the importance of "other dimensions of 'human formation,'" yes, this is so true....
But when this photo (link) is posted as an exemplar of the NAC's human formation, what is one to say? (Besides that it'll probably be scrubbed from the site within minutes....)
Captions, anyone?
-30-
posted by Rocco Palmo at 13:49
4 Comments:
How shallow are you? It appears that the photo was taken during a tour of the Swiss Guard Amory.
You have a problem with a seminarian holding up an old elephant gun for a picture?
I'm disappointed in you.
Are you making fun of him because he's overweight? Or is it just because you enjoy making fun of people?
Either way, the last half of this post is completely lacking in charity, brother.
Holding up a seminarian, who is (at least ostensibly) attempting to give his life to Christ, open for ridicule and mocking. Shame on you, Rocco. And asking for captions? Just because you're friends with a Cardinal or ten doesn't mean you should feel like it is okay to make fun of people like this. Shame on you. Heaven forbid you ever have an odd/funny picture taken of you while touring some place.
Perhaps Rocco is more traditionalist than the self-styled traditionalists. At one time, priests were not permitted to carry firearms or weapons because the clergy - at least in theory - were supposed to avoid the shedding of blood. And so there is, I suppose, an argument that having seminarians play with firearms is contrary to good principles of formation. Of course, the clergy were also once forbidden to attend theatre, the opera, and the ballet. I don't see many people up in arms over priests from being seen at performances of Avenue Q or the Lion King. Ultimately, I could care less whether NACers play with guns or not, though the picture IS a unintentionally hilarious one.
I can't say as I see any problem with this, either. A chubby seminarian holding a museum piece (it's a blunderbuss, btw: a hellishly inaccurate early firearm--essentially a glorified shotgun-- almost as dangerous to the user as it was to the one it was pointed at).
Better the Stanley Cup, to be sure, but that's hard to find in Rome. Unless the real problem is some kind of boring twee peevishness about firearms in general, of course.
<< Home