You can always count on Commonweal for theological humor. This time in relation to the recent Vatican document on seminarians concerning homosexuality. Now there is no surprise that they are not exactly thrilled with the document. At least though they were inventive and came up against a new excuse. Now the document is a – wait for it – a sin against hope.
Many things can be said about the Vatican’s Instruction on gay candidates for the priesthood. Here I want to argue that it is a failure against hope. It indulges, at least materially, in one of the two cardinal sins against hope, presumption. Aquinas, in the Summa Theologiae, wrote of this sin that “one thinks one has…greater knowledge…than one has.” Jesuit philosopher William Lynch noted that hope “keeps reality open and keeps declaring that not all the facts are in.” In at least two places, the Instruction engages in presumption.
First, this is the only Vatican document on homosexuality in recent decades that does not allude, in any respect, to the possibility that we have more to learn about homosexuality. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says of homosexuality that “its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained.” The source of this acknowledgment is surely the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s request that theologians “deepen…their reflections on the true meaning of human sexuality,” and, as a result, “make an important contribution in this particular area of pastoral care,” a request expressed in its 1986 letter to Catholic bishops on The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons.
This criticism seems to me to be especially silly. The document from Congregation for Catholic Education references seminary admissions and is not suppose to be an all inclusive document on homosexuality. Besides considering the admission of those with "deep seated homosexual tendencies" to the priesthood does it really matter what the underlying "psychological genesis" is or that we need to learn more on the subject? Alcoholism is suppose to have a component of genetic disposition. But would a seminary care if an alcoholic was predisposed to alcoholism at birth or had developed the problem through free will? Root causes are important to learn about, but they don’t matter when it comes to determining a suitability of a candidate for any profession much less a vocation to the priesthood.
It is also interesting what they left out in the context of the quote they used from the CDF’s letter.
They are encouraged to call on the assistance of all Catholic theologians who, by teaching what the Church teaches, and by deepening their reflections on the true meaning of human sexuality and Christian marriage with the virtues it engenders, will make an important contribution in this particular area of pastoral care
Commonweal isn’t much for "teaching what the Church teaches" and the fact that human sexuality should only be expressed within marriage. His statement that this is the only document in recent decades not alluding the possibility of learning more about homosexuality is also wrong. The Vatican’s document on same-sex marriage does not in any way address root causes or talk about learning more about homosexuality. Just like the recent document it is strait forward in addressing just the topic it brings up.
Furthermore, why would anyone seeking to foster hope, especially in a homosexual person, trust the Vatican on this? To do so might even lead to what Aquinas calls the other cardinal sin against hope, despair. Of that sin Aquinas wrote: “one who despairs judges…that for him, in that state, on account of some particular disposition, there is no hope of the divine mercy.” I am not saying that I fully understand homosexuality, but I am saying that the Instruction’s bald assertions might rob some homosexual persons of hope.
Despair of what? Not being a seminarian? Is the theoretical virtue of hope dependent on seminary admission. Well I guess women also should then despair since they have no hope of ever entering a seminary. In fact I am dispairing with no hope of ever entering a seminary. Just because I am married and have no vocation to the priesthood why should that bar me?
Mainly though what annoys me about these articles is their underlying dishonesty. One of the authors of this article, William McDonough, constantly speaks on "gay and lesbian" issues including supporting same-sex marriage. In these articles even though they will selectively quote from the Catechism and Church document they don’t accept what the Church truly teaches. That the homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered”and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity.” The fact is that they have a problem with the document is because they think that no homosexual regardless of whether they are chaste or not should be barred from the seminary. We are suppose to accept an honest critiques when the underlying theological assumptions they make are severely mistaken. Garbage in – garbage out. It would be much more honest if they would just come out and say they don’t support what the Church teaches instead of playing theological footsies. More any more we hear stores of priest "coming out" and then announcing they have been chaste. But you never hear them clearly elucidate what the Church teaches. They almost never call their own inclination objectively disordered and instead tie their very identity to their disorder. It is time for writers in dissident rags like Commonweal to come out of the theological closet and write what they truly believe instead of constantly skirting around the issues while taking potshots at the Vatican.
19 comments
According to Commonweal, it says that despair is having no hope in God’s mercy. How does that tie into despairing over the fact that one cannot enter a monastery?
Don’t they ever think of the mothers and fathers who want their boys to serve at the altar? Your analogy to alcoholics is right on. What mother would send her boy to serve with an unhappy, alcoholic priest? What mother would want to take a chance that the young assistant pastor might be homosexual and in need of the company of a young boy? I am amazed that that issue is never addressed. Parents need the assurance that every young man who is accepted as a seminarian and is eventually ordained will be safe company for their sons.
“Just because I…have no vocation to the priesthood, why should that bar me?” It’s the little things that make you a comic genius, Jeff.
Jeff,
Regarding:
“More any more we hear stores of priest ‘coming out’ and then announcing they have been chaste. But you never hear them clearly elucidate what the Church teaches.”:
Do you really think if a priest accounced to his parishioners that he struggled with homosexual tendencies but out of deference to Mother Church’s wisdom had restrained them, and then disassociated himself from the “gay” movement and denounced his brother clerics who have not drawn that line, that he would garner any media attention?
My cousins and family refuse to have their young boys serve as altar boys or for that matter have anything to do with the diocese church. They basically scuttle around between their NO parish as their sons have friends who still attend, and then take their sons to serve as altar boys at a SSPV Traditional parish where they are being versed in their catechism
I asked my cousin over the holidays why not allow him to serve at St Agnes or St Anthony (NO parish and the diocese church) and he said “Never in my life would I allow my sons to be anywhere near alone with those homos, dont you hear how gay they talk”.
Enough said
Ironically, the reinforcement of transient homosexuality may be a great source of hope.
The last comment just took a step in the right direction. It it Commonweal that is sinning against hope, despairing that our biological conditions irrevocably make us sinners. Jesus cannot heal, you say, the spiritual infirmity? That is despair, gang, the gay lobby has declared that homosexuality is beyond the power of Christ, and the weak are going along with it.
It is courageous to take up a cross that so many have laid down, it takes graces that come from the One who told us to take up our cross and follow Him. The one who will not carry their cross may talk of love, but they know not love that is obedient unto death.
We have hope in Jesus, that he can heal us. Who does Commonweal hope in? Tom of Finland?
St. Jimbob–
That’s one of the most thoughtful posts I’ve read on the subject. To rob someone of the hope that a person can move beyond his disordered desires is to deny faith in Christ. It is pride to believe one’s sins and failings are bigger than Christ’s redemption. I think the evil forces in our culture say it best when they declare “Gay Pride.” Humble yourself, weed out your flaws, and work with Christ to heal them through the sacraments and grow closer to him. That’s the job of a Christian.
Some time ago someone threw a bale of hay into this sea of controversy ane there will always be straws to grasp. That the “hopeful” completely ingore the absurdity and fundamental sinfulness of men and women having sex with people of the same gender is absurd in itself, not to mention disingenuous.
Not having a vocation did not deterred homosexual predators from entering the seminary in the 60s and 70s. That’s where the “hopeful” should look for the root of their problem, not the Vatican.
I don’t disagree with Jeff’s critique of Commonweal’s spurious ramblings on “hope.” I also accept “the document” and other teachings of the Church on homosexuality in general (see the Catechism and various documents from CDF
However, in response to John’s (cousin’s) seeming dismissal of the Novus Ordo as a nest of homosexual predators and unquestioning reverence of “Traditional Catholicism” as a bulwark of manliness and chastity above reproach, I would just recall the disgrace of the (now-defunct) Society of Saint John – a “Traditional Catholic” organization centered around the Tridentine Liturgy: The society was dissolved and torn apart over substantiated accusations that their clergy (including superiors) were, in fact, homosexual predators!
I suggest it is irresponsible to suggest that “Traditional Priests” are above suspiciion while those who celebrate the Novus Ordo are more likely to be homosexuals who prey on boys and young men.
John I know you have a hatred for the new Mass, but your posts are just more and more unreasonable.
You might want to think about the story about The Society of St. John began as a breakaway group from the Society of St. Pius X. This group was allowed back withing the Church in 1997 and was allowed use of the Tridentine Rite. They have now been broken up because of their having sex with other seminarians and younger boys.
To associate homosexuality and abuse with the form of the Mass is grotesque. You know from my site that I am no fan of abuses, but they are abuses and the new order of the Mass can be celebrated with great reverence and lead to a greater worship of God.
I am glad that some member of the Roman Church still have the eyes to read their Bibles and realize homosexuality is a sin. However, the Romish abomination is filled through and through with this revolting crime — which is why true Christians understand this “church” to be the abomination of desolation prophesied in the Bible. I warn people night and day to avoid this evil, sinful, and God-hating cult known as the Roman Catholic Church — in reality it is the Whore of Babylon. May it be the same with you, dear readers. Do not fall victims to the lies of the papists.
So Maureen, you’re going to condemn the whole Church because of those Catholics who are unfaithful to its teachings? That’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever read! Puh-leeze stop the old,tired “Whore Of Babylon” nonsense! Catholic apologists like Karl Keating and Patrick Madrid have NUKED that idiocy many times over!
Ok, so we already know that some people know the text of Revelations like the back of their hand, and yet are oblivious of the rest of Scripture. I’m praying for the ‘Rapture’ so that these folks will disappear and leave us to pray in peace.
“Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.”
Jeff
The question beckons “why did the society of St John break away from the SSPX”? Possibly because they knew that under the “old” order of church teachings, clergy found to be homosexual were IMMEDIATELY defrocked and put out for public trial, sometimes even killed. Just because one celebrates the “Traditional Mass” does not make one holy and pious, as there is the catechism and teachings that go along with being a Traditional Catholic, and as they left SSPX to be part of the Indult society of the Novus Ordo, and had to concelebrate BOTH masses-it does not hold water
Under the “New Order” of things are a free for all and are even at the highest levels, where Pope JPII, under consideration for sainthood, gave predator and lead coverup Godfather Law one of the most cushy prestegious jobs in Rome, and now B16 did likewise with Levada, more coverups.
If these sexual predators were “laypersons” they would all be serving 20 years to life instead of getting covered up and protected by these so called Vicars and leaders. One who covers for anothers sin is in grave danger of losing ones soul, and this “Santo subito” push just makes me question just how long down the road will one look at the history of what really is going on
Clearly, these folks see ordination as natural right that when denied must be thought of as a violation of human dignity.
Fortunately, that’s just false.
The denial of ordination cannot be a matter of justice precisely b/c no one has the right to be ordained. It can’t be about justice if no one is being denied what owed him/her. Catholic moral theology doesn’t translate well into American political lingo.
Fr. Philip
Does anyone think here that possibly the form or the rite of ordination, which was completely rewritten in 1968, and after the New Mass came out the next year, which resulted in thousands of priests leaving the priesthood over the next 10 years-have anything to do with this horrible crisis?
Dear John,
To answer your question: no. The two are correlational, but I am dubious of causation. Let’s put the blame where it belongs: Sin.
Andy
If I recall my catechism correctly (The Baltimore one of course), does not Holy Orders, as one of the three sacraments, leave a mark on ones soul? Can it possibly be that the changing of the rite of this Ordination since 1968 has not and is not the true sacrament, and we really dont have true priests and Bishops for that matter? How else can one explain 50% of the priesthood being homosexual, countless abusing children when our Lord said in scripture “Better a millstone be tied around ones neck than to harm a child”, and a lack of teaching and faith not to mention Bishops that cover up for these abusing priests, and are not teaching the true teachings of the church, but one that they subscribe to
To say otherwise, one would be fooling oneself especially as to what the act of receiving Holy Orders actually means. Are you saying that sin is the only cause, or do these men lack the true faith to begin with, and quite possibly have not been ritefully ordained?