Orthodoxy -- LIke the Phoenix -- will it rise again?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Hey Everyone:

As I am on my journey home to the Catholic church, I find myself smack dab in the middle of the River of Controversy. I see the Church is in a crisis, a civil war, really -- Orthodoxy versus Liberalism.

Since I am a novice, perhaps my perspective is tainted by ignorance, but it seems that at least some (perhaps all) of the Cardinals being summoned to Rome are very 'liberal' in their theology, which I believe is the root cause of the crisis in the church as well as in our society. Could some of you please comment on the liberal theology of some of these folks? In fact, when you look at a map of the United States where most of these scandals are occurring it looks like heavy Democrat hot spots.

The beauty of the Catholic church to me is it's profound stubbornness in refusing to bow to the morales of our modern times, and yet it seems that there is too much tolerance given to some of these cardinals and their 'liberality'.

Also, here's an interesting article in the New York Times.

April 19, 2002

Homosexuality in Priesthood Is Under Increasing Scrutiny

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

With the Roman Catholic Church weathering one case after another of priests who sexually abused boys, the Catholic faithful are asking whether there is a closeted culture of homosexuality in the priesthood, and if so whether it is connected to the sexual abuse problem.

The Vatican itself will discuss the issue when American cardinals meet with Pope John Paul II next week in Rome for a hastily arranged session on the American abuse scandal.

It is a sea change for Catholics, especially conservatives, who only eight years ago protested against "Priest," a film about a struggling gay priest, because they considered the entire topic anti-Catholic.

Now, Catholic publications from the liberal Jesuit magazine America to official diocesan newspapers are calling for an examination of homosexuality in the priesthood.

"The overwhelming majority of the sexual abuse cases involve adult men having sex with teenage boys and young men, and by ordinary English usage we call that a homosexual relationship," said the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, editor of First Things, a conservative journal. "So there's no blinking regarding that fact."

No reliable statistics exist about either the extent of the abuse or broader questions about the sexuality of the clergy. A church built on a theoretically chaste priesthood has had little interest in commissioning or even permitting such studies. Eugene Kennedy, an emeritus professor of psychology at Loyola University of America, said that in the last 15 years American bishops had asked him more than once to conduct a study of priests' sexuality, but that other bishops had quashed the idea.

Associated Press reports Joaquin Navarro Valls, a papal spokesman, has said homosexuals "just cannot be ordained."

Concerning sexual abuse, the church has not kept comprehensive records on how many priests have been accused or found guilty, though the recent scrutiny has prompted some dioceses to review 50 years of personnel records and compile lists of problem priests. The Philadelphia Diocese, for example, reported 35.

Still, the only nationwide effort at record-keeping has been done by victims' lawyers like Sylvia Demarest in Dallas and Jeffrey Anderson in St. Paul, who claim to have assembled lists of more than 1,000 priests accused of abuse in the United States. It is unknown how many of these accusations involve men who are no longer in the priesthood, were wrongly accused, or whose cases date back four or more decades. There are currently 46,075 priests in the United States.

Scientists who have studied sexual offenders warn that the scandal in the church has caused two distinct issues — homosexuality and child abuse — to become erroneously and recklessly intertwined. They note that homosexuals are no more likely than heterosexuals to be pedophiles.

Experts also say that few of the abusive priests can be considered genuine pedophiles because many of their victims were not children, but teenagers. A person attracted exclusively to adolescents is an ephebophile, but researchers disagree whether the abuse has been caused by priests actually suffering from ephebophilia, or by those who have preyed on teenagers simply because they are accessible.

The assumption that homosexuality has anything to do with this crisis has arisen largely because a disproportionate number of those abused were male.

Dr. Fred S. Berlin, associate professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University, said, "Some of this has been about homosexual men giving in to temptation with adolescent males. At the same time, we should make it clear that homosexuals are no more risk to children than heterosexuals. In terms of the bigger picture, there are every bit as many heterosexual men giving into sexual temptation with female adolescents."

Some experts suggest that the entire picture might be different if accurate information were available about the priests' victims. Dr. William Stayton, a psychologist who worked on a surgeon general report on sex education that was released last year, said he suspected many adolescent girls and women had also been abused by priests.

"We're just beginning now to get women who are coming forward," Dr. Stayton, a professor at Widener University's Center for Education in Philadelphia, said. "My guess is that if the number of women who were abused came out, it would be even more than the males."

In the absence of facts are theories colored by ideologies. The surprising revelation is that all interested parties — liberals and conservatives, pro-gay and antigay — seem to agree that discussions about the sexual abuse crisis also need to address clergy homosexuality. Where the camps diverge entirely is in explaining just how the two are linked.

Liberals, and many experts who have treated sexually abusive priests, say the cause of the crisis is the church's lack of candor about sexuality and the strictures of priestly celibacy. The problem arises, they say, when sexually stunted and inexperienced young men are recruited into an institution in which sex is taboo, incubated in the all-male hothouse called a seminary, and then are deposited into a lonely occupation where a good part of their human contact is with young boys.

"So many of the priests are psychosexually immature, it makes them more vulnerable to taking advantage of, or falling in love with, if you will, age-inappropriate people," said A. W. Richard Sipe, a psychotherapist and former Benedictine monk who has written several books about priests and sexuality.

Conservatives like Father Neuhaus link the abuse problem to American libertinism and a lack of faithfulness to celibacy in the American church. They argue that after the liberalizing effects of Vatican II and the gay rights movement, bishops and religious orders ordained too many gay men, and looked the other way when those priests broke their celibacy vows, either with one another or with youths.

They point to the case of Rev. Paul Shanley, a molester whose superiors in Boston failed to discipline him even after he gave a speech sanctioning sex between men and boys.

"We are now bearing the consequences of the collapse of discipline," Father Neuhaus said.

So, What say ye Catholic Faithful -- will the Phoenix rise again? sure hope so!

Gail

-- Gail Roth (rothfarms@socket.net), April 19, 2002

Answers

Orthodoxy is with us and has always been. There are always dissenters, but focus on the truth. BTW, orthdoxy alone is not enough, you must also have apolstolic zeal, and a willingness to give totatly of self. Trust the Holy Spirit and the words of Christ himself that the gates of hell will not prevail against his church. As to the article, the Vatican said recently that homosexuals should not be allowed to enter the priesthood. As the famous old dictum says" "Roma locuta, causa finita" (Rome has spoken, case closed) Pax

-- Joe Catholic (catholic@thecore.com), April 19, 2002.

Gail,

I read that article this morning. I had trouble with the following line.

We're just beginning now to get women who are coming forward," Dr. Stayton, a professor at Widener University's Center for Education in Philadelphia, said. "My guess is that if the number of women who were abused came out, it would be even more than the males."

I believe this is a major stretch. Even more than the males? How many women have come out?

As far as orthodoxy coming to life again, I sure hope so!

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), April 19, 2002.


Yes, that line you highlighted almost sounds like an invitation!

I know the mainstream media is hoping this scandal will somehow bolster their agenda of changing catholic theology to reflect their ideologies, -- although I think, hope and pray that the backlash will be towards more orthodoxy and less tolerance towards those that don't hold to Catholic teaching.

I saw Katie Couric interview Father Andrew Greeley, and I got the distinct impression that she hopes the Vatican will see that "their strict adherence to doctrine is the real problem here." I can't even begin to understand how she could hope such a thing. Am I missing something?

What about Father Greeley -- Is he liberal in his theology? (He seemed so to me) And how liberal can one be and still be called "Catholic"?

Just trying to get a handle on all this.

Gail

-- Gail Roth (rothfarms@socket.net), April 19, 2002.


You picked a metaphor as the title to your post, and didn't expect any interpretation of such. But, it gives an opportunity to see beyond this stage in our scandals.

Before a phoenix rises from its own ashes, it must be burnt and destroyed. That's the way mythology describes it. The Catholic Church is far from destroyed; albeit people like Couric, Laurie Goodstein and many others think they're witnessing a Church in ruins. There's cause for reform, naturally. Those who say we're in ''denial'' are just as wrong as the ones who are pronouncing this the end of the Catholic priesthood.

If they believed, as you and I do, that the Holy Spirit is always with the Church, they'd put away the newscameras. They would know God doesn't depend on human wisdom or proaction stategies.

We know He is permitting this shock to the faithful so we'll examine ourselves; and this includes our clergy. Our pastors have had a long spell of affluence, but seemed to accumulate little moral fiber. Even the ones who haven't sinned grievously are having to get on their knees to God and look for His mercy.

That's good. Self-examination in DEPTH, is good for the soul. The benefits will surely start coming from here on. Phoenix isn't rising from the ashes, because there were no ashes. Lot's of smoke and some real fire. But the Catholic faith is still the true faith. Nothing can alter that.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 19, 2002.


No one seems to be able to answer a fundamental question in this area of "homosexual" Priests. How does one determine if a Priest living his celibacy chastely is gay or straight? I firmly believe that more than 90% of us Priests are living our celibacy chastely. Fr. Chris LaBarge

-- Father Chris LaBarge (marydelfr@starband.net), April 19, 2002.


Fr, I have heard Fr Benedict Groeschel discuss this, and he says that it is a fundamentally misunderstand of the term homosexual. Essentially, it is a disorder, and the catechism clearly says so. It really is the wrong way to look at it as something inate. It is not what God intended for anyone. Just as an alcoholic may not be 100% responsible, nevertheless it is a disorder, ie outside the natural state that God created in his image and likeness. Until people get this idea straight there is all sorts of confusion.

-- Joe Catholic (me@nospam.net), April 19, 2002.

The truth may just be that an effeminate man is just as holy a priest as an outwardly macho-type. Let's be honest. There ARE some priests-- and some laymen-- who strike us as effeminate. But these men are not necessarily in danger of falling in love with anybody; least of all the acolytes. It's a matter of morals, not chemistry. You could be a very fine specimen of a man and be corrupt inside. Or a complete saint inside. Why not a man that appears soft? It's the heart that makes us what we are. Saintly men are filled with the Holy Spirit. He can keep them holy and pure.

The evil-doers are those who enter the priesthood as a ruse. They reject the Holy Spirit.

At least, this is how it would appear to me. I try never to leave God and His grace out of the equation. The enemies of the Church have no need to believe in grace; so they overlook that aspect. Catholics should not conceive of a holy priesthood that just runs wild for no apparent reason. It's the lack of grace which leads men to sin.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 19, 2002.


Okay, here's the question I am just dying to ask but didn't have the nerve . . .

Why 'O Why does the Vatican (or whoever oversees Cardinals/Archbishops) allow leadership to espouse false doctrines (anti-Catholic doctrines)? Or do they get in trouble eventually? Why are liberal seminaries allowed to operate?

I think I would probably be a tyrant if I were in charge -- lopping off the heads of all dissenters. (I think I'll have to choose Joan of Arc as my Patron Saint!! (She is a Saint, isn't she -- I'm showing my ignorance again!)

I love that Phoenix metaphor Eugene elaborated on . . . perhaps there will be ashes, only they will be the result of the all Consuming Fire!

In that case, let the fire begin!! Lord, let revival reign from on high!! Let your holy fire cleanse us, each one, and make us holy!!! Purify! Forgive us for apathy, forgive us for grieving your Holy Spirit. Forgive us for allowing this world to shape our morals. Cleanse your Church, and start with me!! Amen,

Love,

Gail

-- Gail Roth (rothfarms@socket.net), April 19, 2002.


Gail,

Have you read George Weigel's "Wistness to Hope". Its lengthy, but you can skip over some of the Polish politics. It details the Pope's dealing with the Jesuit order, and other similar topics. (In addition to the fall of communism, and almost every other event of the last 25 years). But it explains how the Pope could not simply excommunicate en masse the largest religious order in the church. So rather than a slash a burn policy, he tried to bring them back in by rational argument, exhortation etc. In fact this Pope who in some quarters has a reputation as being draconian, has only formally disciplined a handful of priests. But yet he has had a major impact. Witness the many young priests and religious who want nothing to do with the modernism of their elders.

-- Joe Catholic (me@nospam.com), April 20, 2002.


oops. "Witness to Hope" obviously. Oh, and about the fire thing, ever hear the expression 'be careful what you pray for?' Seriously, like the Pope, God prefers mercy to justice, I think. He allows us our free will, and gives us an opportunity to change. I for one can think of several periods in the last 25 or so years that I am extremely glad no fireball from heaven came down. :) So lets all work while its still daylight, eh? ciao

-- Joe Catholic (me@nospam.net), April 20, 2002.


Whoops! I meant the fire of cleansing, not the fire of destruction. Thanks for all the very helpful information. Very encouraging!

Gail

-- Gail Roth (rothfarms@socket.net), April 20, 2002.


I think I understood sort of. I just meant this is why God allows error, sin in general, because of our free will. At some point he does become a God of justice though, I think. Joan of Arc is a Saint btw, but she wasn't canonized until the 1900's, some say by the prayers of St Therese of Lisieux, who was a great benefactress of hers.

-- Joe Catholic (me@nospam.net), April 20, 2002.

Hi, Gail.

You wrote: "... it seems that at least some (perhaps all) of the Cardinals being summoned to Rome are very 'liberal' in their theology, which I believe is the root cause of the crisis in the church as well as in our society."

You are right in saying that the opposite of orthodoxy -- I prefer to call it heterodoxy (from any direction), rather than liberalism -- "is the root cause of the crisis." However, there are several good, orthodox cardinals in the U.S.. The full list of U.S. cardinals includes Anthony Bevilacqua of Philadelphia (outstanding), Avery Dulles (a retired teaching priest), Francis George of Chicago (good and brilliant), William Keeler of Baltimore (early retirement needed without delay), Bernard Law of Boston (orthodox, but apparently prone to error), Roger Mahony of Los Angeles (entry into a monastery for a life of penitence needed now), Adam Maida of Detroit (orthodox Polish-American), Edward Egan of New York (orthodox), and Theodore McCarrick of Washington (excellent).
Some will criticize me for being so bold as to think that I have a right to make the above comments, but it is time for frankness and honesty, and you needed to know these things, Gail.

You asked: "Why 'O Why does the Vatican (or whoever oversees Cardinals/Archbishops) allow leadership to espouse false doctrines (anti-Catholic doctrines)? Or do they get in trouble eventually? Why are liberal seminaries allowed to operate?"

I think it's fair to speculate (and definitely right to hope) that recent events will cause a diminution of these bad things. There has long been a need for a crackdown, in my opinion. Many U.S. seminaries were even worse twenty years ago, but the pope (around 1985) required a panel of U.S. bishops to travel around on a "visitation" of all of them, to do an evaluation and make corrections (adding missing courses, quashing bad ones, etc.). However, the panel did not cause enough reform to take place, so problems have continued in some cities.

Remember that we cannot see what is going on behind the scenes -- phone calls, letters, visits from the papal nuncio in Washington to disobedient or heterodox bishops, reprimands when bishops visit the pope once every five years, etc.. Still, the powers and independence of the individual bishops -- as successors of the apostles, not "deputies" of a "sheriff pope" -- were emphasized at Vatican Council II in the 1960s. And I firmly believe that the pope tries his utmost not to interfere with his brother bishops' independent shepherding of their dioceses. This practice of papal trusting cannot help but result in some of the problems we complain about, wherever a bishop has gone bad (as Judas Iscariot did). I once read that a Vatican official said that the pope usually does not step in when something is localized and could/should be taken care of by a single bishop, but that he gets involved when something bad begins to affect two or more dioceses.

You asked: "What about Father Greeley -- Is he liberal in his theology?"
He is completely unreliable. Please don't bother to listen to him. He is even the writer of "soft-core porn" novels. For the truth on TV, watch for commentary from Fr. C. John McCloskey (convert from Episcopalianism) and Msgr. William Smith.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 20, 2002.


>>> Francis George of Chicago (good and brilliant)

When he was a bishop here in the Diocese of Yakima he confirmed me. He was great!

I think orthodoxy will most definitely rise again. People are just naturally reactionary creatures. We swing like pendulums, I think. The Church endures all kinds of movements, from raging liberals to the Feeneyans. What I love about the Church is how she keeps us on the right path regardless of what the times tell us--the Church will never bend to the opinions of the times--Jesus promised us! :-)

People reacted against many pre-Vatican II aspects of the church, because apparently it was a time for the Church to adjust to the modern world. (I didn't live back then so I can't really say...) However, for years I think people have gotten too carried away with the so-called "spirit" of Vatican II. I'm 25 years old, was born after Vatican II. (Gosh, it's getting harder and harder to say I'm a "young" Catholic) :-/ Anyway, lot of Catholics my age (myself included) are inclining towards a more Orthodox Catholicism because while we weren't raised in the "old school", many of us fell too much was liberalized and stripped away.

I guess it's our way of rebelling against our hippie parents. ;-) *kidding*

-- Susan Doe (anon@noemail.com), April 21, 2002.


Hi Susan,

It's great to hear your input on the forum--I think you're a new voice. If so, welcome! I just have some quick comments.

Susan writes:

"I think orthodoxy will most definitely rise again. People are just naturally reactionary creatures. We swing like pendulums, I think."

I can't underline how much I agree with you on this, except to say--you took the words right out of my mouth!

In high school, we had two teachers who taught 12th grade English. My teacher was commonly thought of as the tougher teacher. We always joked with her that we would "defect" en masse to the other teacher so that we could breeze through an easier class. Our teacher just laughed and told us, "The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence."

Susan writes:

"Anyway, lot of Catholics my age (myself included) are inclining towards a more Orthodox Catholicism because while we weren't raised in the "old school", many of us fell too much was liberalized and stripped away."

This is what the 60's and 70's ultra-reformers don't understand. They can't see that they are now the ones whom we are rebelling against!

Susan writes:

"I guess it's our way of rebelling against our hippie parents. ;-) *kidding*"

My parents are older than the "hippie" generation. Although you and I laugh about it, younger people are rebelling against their "hippie parents"! :-) The irony is priceless!

Mateo el Feo.

-- (MattElFeo@netscape.net), April 21, 2002.



Thanks to all for your words of wisdom and encouragement. I really do believe we are going to see a 'revival' in the Catholic church. How exciting!

John, I appreciate your giving me an outline on some of the leaders of our church, and your warnings! (I love McCloskey) Jesus says to beware of false teachers and prophets, and that we would know them by their fruits. He also says when a tree doesn't bear fruit it is cut down and thrown in the fire. (His words, not mine) When they stray from sound doctrine, that's the first warning! I know in this 'politically correct' age that people are afraid to be 'judgmental,' however Jesus does give us the tools of discernment!

Thanks to the young people on this forum. I am greatly encouraged by your insights. Yes, I am part of that 60's-70's bunch, and I'm afraid the revolutions we caused were incited by Satan himself. So much damage has been done to our culture. It's good to see that young people can see that, and hopefully undo some of the damage my generation caused.

God Bless,

Gail

P.S. My prayers are for the Vatican this week, that Wisdom will pour down from heaven!

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 21, 2002.


Thanks, Gail. You (and I) may have slipped in the '60s and '70s, but, through God's grace, we are back on the right track. Knowing how bad I've been makes me not really want to condemn Cardinals Keeler and Mahony (despite the tongue-in-cheek comments I made about them). I would rather they stay in their present offices as long as the pope would wish, but we so badly need for them to be 100% orthodox and to keep a close eye on their archdioceses, where lots of unfortunate things are happening.

Welcome, young Susan! It was a great pleasure for me to read your message.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 21, 2002.


I was so disheartened this morning to read the New York Daily News column regarding Msgr. Eugene Clark's comments on the pulpit at St. Patrick's Cathederal yesterday. I cannot believe that the church is actually blaming homesexual priests for its problems. It is absolutely outrageous to me. I think the hierachy should take complete responsiblity for its improper management of this situation all along and stop putting the blame on others.

Fr. Mycal Judge was one of the kindest, most decent, caring, compassionate human beings ever to walk this earth. Fr. Mycal was gay. He lived his life to help others, from all walks of life. He helped immigrans, he helped acoholics, he helped gays, he helped anyone who was suffering. He was one of God's best and I have no doubt that Jesus welcomed this man home with open arms and this man never once hurt anyone - no less a child. There is a lot more to this story which I prefer not to go into here involving Fr. Mycal and the hierachy and how they did not accept this man. I will take a Fr. Mycal over the others any day.....He lived God's word and his funeral was a living testimony to how this man touched people's lives, how he made a difference in this world and how much he was loved.

I think Fr. Clark should think about what he said and perhaps take a look into his own closet before attacking others. He has some dirt there that I am sure he would not want other people to know about. If he doesn't stop this blame-game it may come back to slap him in his own face. May God forgive him.

-- Gerri (gerd125@webtv.net), April 22, 2002.


Dear Gerri:
Please reflect a moment; and be certain you understood what he meant, the priest at St Patrick's.

You say he was ''blaming'' homosexuals?

--''actually blaming homesexual priests for its problems.'' Its problems? The Church has no ''problems''-- The Catholic Church has abevy of impure priests with problems; and a few bishops who have been negligent about disciplining them. If the priests who didn't receive that badly-needed discipline were truly ALL Pedophiles, Msgr. Eugene Clarke should never have brought up any question of the homosexuals in the priesthood. Of which there are many, we're certain.

But-- he is aware that many of the so-called ''pedophiles'' we're reading about and heaing about on TV were NOT abusing little boys of ten or eleven. In some of those cases the boys were YOUNG MEN. Something the news media never touches with a ten-foot pole; because this means there were actually homosexual offenses going on in Church. The media is compromised; never to say anything derogatory about ''gays''. Because that's ''gay-bashing.'' Here you are, even-- accusing Msgr. Clarke of being a gay-basher! But all he's done is speak the truth; facts which are kept from all the public.

In case you don't know this, I've been accused here in this forum of being too soft on homosexual priests. Because like you, I think there are many more GOOD homosexually-oriented (effeminate) priests than there are BAD ones!

I've been told NO ! There can't be priests who sublimate their ''gay'' (or pedophile) urges; it's a disorder, a moral fault and a mental flaw in their sexuality.

I favor judging priests, like any other men, by their actions. Not what experts seem to ''know'' about their mental state. Even for those bishops who unwittingly enabled the worst abusers, I said a charitable word. They really may have thought the sinner was repentant. Then, in order to preserve the seal of the confessional, they may have stupidly kept the secret of these evil men's KNOWN past actions. Playing right into the hands of the devil!

But don't be so quick to condemn those who dump on the priests you only saw as effeminate. You knew a ''gay'' priest who was a saint? I don't doubt you for a minute.

Except, he was NOT ''gay''. Gay signifies an actual, actively sinning homosexual. Not an innocent man of the so-called orientation. The innocent priest could only be called effeminate. That in itself is not a sin. I'm sure, as you say, Jesus welcomed this man home with open arms and this man never once hurt anyone -

I don't know the person, so I'm taking your word. But to me it's plausible. --Msgr. Clarke wasn't attacking him particularly, I hope? You haven't explained.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2002.


From what I have read, the majority of the cases reported thus far are young teen boys. That is a homosexual act, not pedophilia. Pedophilia involves pre-adolescent children.

They are going to HAVE to carefully screen vocations to eliminate ANYONE, gay or straight, who might be sexually deviant.

I'm with you, Eugene, as long as they are chaste, it doesn't matter! But if they are openly, active gay, they must step down, no matter how great of a human being they are. And I would say the SAME THING goes for active heterosexuals! I'm not sure whether Judge was active or not, I assume so since everyone knows about his proclivity.

Here's the article . . .

Priest Who Blamed Gays, Immorality for Scandal Spoke for Himself, Archdiocese Says THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

he New York Archdiocese distanced itself Monday from a high-ranking official’s sermon that blamed the Catholic Church’s child-molestation scandal on gay priests and American immorality.

“He was speaking for himself,” spokesman Joe Zwilling said of Monsignor Eugene Clark, the rector of St. Patrick’s, who called the U.S. “probably the most immoral country in the Western Hemisphere.”

Clark spoke as priests throughout the archdiocese read parishioners a letter from Egan apologizing for any mishandling of sex abuse cases involving priests. The cardinal struck a conciliatory tone in person Sunday when he asked a Bronx congregation to pray for him as he left to discuss the scandal with fellow cardinals and Pope John Paul II in Rome.

Standing in for Egan at St. Patrick’s, Clark labeled homosexuality “a disorder” and said that admitting gay students into seminaries was a “grave mistake,” the Daily News reported Monday.

Clark estimated that 3 percent of U.S. clergymen were “sexual molesters” provoked by sexual images in popular entertainment.

“They became victims with millions of Americans to a celebrated promiscuity (that) helped to degenerate 3 percent of the clergy which is sad, but not beyond our understanding,” Clark said in written remarks provided by his office.

Clark said in a separate statement Monday that his homily had been “misconstrued and misinterpreted.”

“In my homily, I did not associate homosexuals with the illness of pedophilia, although some priests had fallen, sadly, into man-boy sexual relationships,” he wrote. “I did not discuss my comments in advance with His Eminence, Cardinal Egan, and I have not discussed my comments with him today.”

Clark celebrates Mass at St. Patrick’s when Egan visits other churches in the archdiocese. The monsignor is not expected to consult the cardinal about the content of his homily, Zwilling said.

Clark is known in the archdiocese as a staunch conservative unafraid to criticize the church hierarchy for liberalism, said Tom Reese, editor-in-chief of the Catholic weekly, America.

“It’s clear that Monsignor Clark is speaking for himself and is expressing the views of very conservative Catholics,” Reese said.

But Catholic League president William Donohue said he would be surprised if Egan disagreed with Clark’s statements, which he called long overdue.

“This MTV world of sexual titillation has everything to do with the corruption, whether that’s in the church or out of the church,” Donohue said.

Clark’s Sunday sermon echoed, in part, the Vatican’s first public statement about the scandal. The pope’s chief spokesman told The New York Times last month that the church needed to prevent gays from becoming priests.

Marianne Duddy, the executive director of gay Catholic advocacy group Dignity/USA, called Clark’s homily, “very irresponsible.”

“I think that most Catholics see this for what it is — an attempt to deflect attention away from the horrible mishandling of the situation by church officials and the decades of coverup that have been engaged in,” she said.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 22, 2002.


Dear Eugene, I suggest you go to the New York Daily News section and read what Father Clark said today. You "doubt" that I know a gay priests? Why do you doubt that? Fr. Mycal was the NYFD's chaplain that died at the WTC and he was gay. Also, I happen to know lots of priests in the New York City Dioecese, having worked there for many years.

Being catholic, and a good one, does not mean, Eugene, that I should accept everything without question. It does not mean that I have to agree with everything that is said from the pulpit when I do not.

I get the sense that you are one of those catholics who wears blinders and goes along with everything. I happen to believe that there are gay priests who do live celibate lives. I also happen to believe that 90% of our priests live celibate lives, but there are some who do not, Eugene. I am not judging these priests, nor am I condemning my church. There are realities that we, as Catholics, have to face whether we like it or not. Our catholic church is the most beautiful of all, I love everything about being catholic, and I will defend all that is good about it to anyone who comes into my path. But, I am also very intelligent, have lived in the world for many years and have the right to question, the right to critique my church. It is my God-given right. Seems to me, Eugene, that you want to hear only good and positive things about the church - anything else you take as a condemnation. Well, if you want only those who see all the good and not the bad about our church then why don't they change the name of this forum. As a Catholic, I thought I was among family here. I am not talking to catholic bashers, or anti- catholics. It is quite obvious, that gay priests are going to be the target of this scandal now and, if that is the case, why was it not addressed years ago. We go back to that same question? Why were they allowed to stay in the church all these years?

-- Gerri (-- Gerri (gerd125@webtv.net),), April 22, 2002.


Hi Eugene,

"In some of those cases, the boys were YOUNG MEN." Eugene, I am not sure if you are quoting someone, or if this is your statement. Whoever the quote is from, they are right that it is not pedophilia, however, these young boys are under 18, which makes it statutory rape. Eugene, I know that you and others mean well by your comments, but if you were to go back and read them again, it often sounds like you are minimizing the severity of what took place. I know that is not your intentions, I've read many of your post to know that you take your religeon very seriously, and that you are a moral, kind and decent human being. So please do not take my comment offensivly, it is not my intention to offend you.

Respectfully,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), April 22, 2002.


Susan- You said "Anyway, a lot of Catholics my age (myself included) are inclining towards a more Orthodox Catholicism because while we weren't raised in the "old school", many of us fell too much was liberalized and stripped away"--

Give me some examples. What is it in particular that was liberalized and stripped away? Just curious.

-- Farrell Weiers (fweiers@hotmail.com), April 22, 2002.


Kathy, I, too, am a moral, kind and decent human beings who takes her religion very seriously and that is why I want all of the issues addressed once and for all. We do have lots of problems in our system that must be taken care of. We cannot weed them all out at once, Kathy, but there is a reason why so many priests left the church, why so many nuns left the church, why so many priests are alcoholics and suffer from depression. Catholic people refuse to accept this and get very defensive when they hear these things. They want to just walk around in darkness, go to church and do not want to deal with these things. Maybe they are right because as lay people there is nothing we can do about it.

Maybe I should do the same thing, just go to church, serve my church, ask no questions, and pretend that all is well when it is not. I wish I could do that too, but no changes for the better were ever made by people who refuse to stay in the comfort zone.

-- Gerri (Gerri (-- Gerri (gerd125@webtv.net),)), April 22, 2002.


Hi Gerri,

I am not Catholic so I am not aware of all the things you listed that appear to be a problem in the Catholic Church. But, if you what you say is true, (alcoholism & depression), are you saying that these problems exist in part due to the Church? Because there are alot of people who suffer from alcoholism and depression, other than priests, and there is help for them. As for the priests and nuns leaving the church, maybe they didn't belong their in the first place, I don't know. I suppose only they know why they left.

Gerri, I respect your opinion, but be careful not to categorize Catholic people. Not all Catholic people have a blind eye and deaf ears to the problems that may exist in the Church.

I haven't met a person yet, that doesn't have some history of dysfunction in their life, be it big or small. I suppose these are God's life lessons we are supposed to learn from.

Anyway.....May the healing begin!!!

God Bless,

-- Kathy (Curious@aol.com), April 22, 2002.


Gerri,
You don't read so well, do you? I AGREED with what you said:

You knew a ''gay'' priest who was a saint? This is what I remarked: ''I don't doubt you for a minute.'' --Does that sound like I was ''wearing blinders?''--I indicated just what you did, that an effeminate priest COULD live chastely. What's your problem?

I'm in fact showing you what the Church always knew. But since the corruption of a small number is so overwhelming to you and others, the innocent must pay for the guilty now. As if you cared!

The priest's talk at St Patrick's is not an exoneration of the Church; or a shifting of blame. He knows there must be reform, and he thinks it should start in the seminaries, where so many homosexuals have been accepted.

When you make a blanket statement like: -- ''Catholic people refuse to accept this and get very defensive when they hear these things. They want to just walk around in darkness, go to church and do not want to deal with these things.''

So, priests should not call our society sinful? You should realise that our young priests are drawn from this society, Gerri. They're bound to reflect society's scruples. Yet, I believe in our holy priests; where apparently you want to toss them all out as 100% guilty?

This is what you call justice? If you see by what I've said in our forum that I'm walking in darkness; I challenge you to show that post to me. Accuse me. If I'm guilty, I want to know it. Learn to read, and concentrate on what the words mean, Gerri. I stand by every word I've written; and I don't wear blinders. I have a very keen awareness of all that has been going on. I have known hundreds of priests. All were good priests, even if a few seemed effeminate. I judge everybody by his/her actions, not what you or CNN decides for me.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2002.


Eugene, you are always on the defense. No one can say anything that you do not agree with. You attack them for it. I am not saying that all catholics are in denial or wear blinders, but many do and you know it, Eugene. They will defend the church no matter what and fail to look at the reality. You always have to come back at someone with a nasty comment, Eugene when the statement made was not meant to be a judgement against the church. As for Msgr. Clark, it was quite clear what he meant, Eugene, in fact, so clear that the Cardinal called from Rome today to make an announcement that Msgr. Clark's statement at St. Patrick's cathederal yesterday was his own and DOES NOT REPRESENT THE OPINION OF THE CHURCH!!!! So, Eugene, what Msgr. Clark said was rude, obnoxious, judgemental and could certainly cause more problems for the church, which they certainly do not need at this time.

As for alcholism and depression sufferred by priests, yes, so do lay people. It is a big problem in our society today you are right. There are many problems in our society today - lack of morals, the breakdown of family, divorce, day care and I include day care in there because mothers do not stay home with their babies any more. Sorry, that is another thread entirely.

Eugene, I guess I have to learn how to communicate with you. I don't seem to know how to do that. I seem to rub you the wrong way all the time. I am not sure what it is that you are looking for from people who post here. I am certainly not one to say what you want to hear. I speak the truth. Maybe I have to go about it differently. Whatever, God Bless you and God Bless all our priests, and our Church, our World because we sure need his blessings. We can't even get along on a message board how are we ever going to have peace in the world.

-- Gerri (Gerri (gerd125@webtv.net),)),), April 22, 2002.


Let me know, then. How is one to get along with a person-- Who, when you AGREE with him, he accuses you of covering up for evil in the Church? Or for walking around with blinders on? Oh, just defensive-- If I had been disagreeable, and told you you were wrong; then you would say I ''rubbed you the RIGHT way?'' Hard for me to grasp what you are complaining about.

As for the priest, let's see it from another perspective. You think he was rude and obnoxious. OK-- Is this his free speech right under the constitution? Or isn't it?

Suppose you say the ones who detest our Catholic faith are obnoxious. When they make atrocious accusations against ALL priests. We had a man here who stated flatly, he would not let his kids come within reach of ANY Catholic priest at all. Is that obnoxious? We have an atheist here who daily says I'm ''protecting'' priests who all they do all day is rape children! I'm not supposed to be defensive? Then: I make a peaceful, clear statement of agreement with you; about the worthiness of certain effeminate priests. Do you say fine? No, you tell me I'm nasty.

Because I failed to heap hatred and scorn on the Monsignor whom you detest in the NY Post. Go figure. I wonder if you're even a serious adult.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 22, 2002.


Eugene and Gerri, I just got through reading your entire exchange.
I strongly recommend that you blot out what has happened (or, more accurately put, what you imagined has happened) and make a new start on another subject, on another thread, tomorrow. I think that you will get along pretty well.

Something unfortunate happened here, and it kind of messed up the whole atmosphere, leading to accusation, counter-accusation, etc.. It was all so unfortunate and unnecessary. Gerri, you accidentally misread a comment that Gene made, leaving out a key word and thus thinking the exact opposite of what he intended! He was supporting your point of view, but you thought he was attacking it. Then when you accidentally complained about his behavior, he got overheated to such an unreasonable degree that he could not even respond to you kindly after you had nearly apologized. It was really all very sad and unpleasant to read. All so unnecessary. That's why I say that you will do better after a good night's sleep and starting over.

Now after those peace-making words, I don't hesitate to say that I disagree with both of you!!! I have been seeing Monsignor Clark on EWTN for years now. I think that what he said was absolutely marvelous and truthful. As CLRCR's Bill Dononue was quoted above as saying, I too think that Cardinal Egan shares the beliefs of Msgr. Clark, though he may not choose to express them publicly (at least not yet).

Gerri, I do agree with a variety of things that you said (e.g., about daycare, divorce, etc.). However, I completely disagree with you and Gene on the subject of priests who suffer from the "disorder" [the pope's word] that is sometimes called "homosexual orientation," sometimes "same-sex attraction." I will stand with the pope, whose spokesman has made it clear that the Church must do its best not to allow people with this disorder (or any heterosexual disorder, either) to enter seminaries. Please note well that, when the pope and I speak of "disorder," we are talking merely of the attraction, not of acting sinfully upon it. The mere attraction is a psychosexual abormality, a disorder -- though the attraction does not make a man guilty of sin.

What I would like to ask each of you to do is to state one of these three things in response to what the pope has stated through his spokesman (Joaquin Navarro-Valls):
(1) I agree with the pope that seminaries cannot accept men who are attracted to other men (sometimes called "homosexuals" or "gays"), even if they are living chaste lives, because God is not calling them to the priesthood.
(2) I believe that the pope is wrong. The seminaries should be open to all men who are living chastely, if they believe that they have a vocation, even if they are attracted to other men.
(3) I haven't made up my mind about this yet.
Please, Gene and Gerri -- #1, #2, or #3. I want to find out whether or not you are orthodox Catholics, trusting the pope on this. Do you give your adherence, your submission of mind and will to him (#1) -- as required by Vatican II -- or do you rate your contrary judgment (#2) as better than the pope's?

It would probably be unjust for the Church to force all priests who are suffering from the disorder to retire (or to be laicized), but I believe that they should be offered a chance to be re-trained to do other, non-priestly work. Then, if they choose to remain as active priests, they should be placed in positions in which they could do no harm to anyone and in which temptations are minimized. It must be like keeping a patient with a dangerous illness in a very sterile, private hospital room, lest he catch a fatal disease or infect others.

It is easy to say, as dear Gail did, something like this: "I'm with you, Eugene, as long as they are chaste, it doesn't matter! But if they are openly, active gay, they must step down, no matter how great of a human being they are."
But that is not what the pope is saying, and he is so wise! One cannot tell if "they are chaste," unless one catches them in the act! More basic than that is the common sense of it ... The Church does not want young men who are attracted to men to be packed together in a seminary, where they will be near occasions of sin to each other! The Church does not want priests who are attracted to men and boys, even if they are being chaste, to be placed in close proximity to boys in parishes, schools, etc., where the temptations can be overwhelming. Instead, says the pope, in the seminaries, schools, and parishes, only normal men -- common sense tells us -- can be permitted to be within proximity to men and boys.

Gerri, you wrote: "Fr. Mycal Judge was one of the kindest, most decent, caring, compassionate human beings ever to walk this earth. Fr. Mycal was gay. ... There is a lot more to this story which I prefer not to go into here involving Fr. Mycal and the hierachy and how they did not accept this man."

It is actually impossible for me to tell if you are saying that Fr. Mychal "acted out" his same-sex attraction or if he remained chaste. If he "acted out," I will pray that he repented and made a good sacramental confession just before he died. Perhaps he did so, and that is why God called him home -- because he found his soul in the proper state for it.

Gene, you wrote, to my great dismay (since you said that you did not want to make me angry about this any more): "I've been accused here in this forum of being too soft on homosexual priests. Because like you, I think there are many more GOOD homosexually-oriented (effeminate) priests than there are BAD ones! I've been told NO ! There can't be priests who sublimate their 'gay' (or pedophile) urges; it's a disorder, a moral fault and a mental flaw in their sexuality."

Gerri, he is talking about me, but is painting an utterly false picture. I know that you are not lying, Gene. You actually believe what you just wrote! But it is a pathetic mischaracterization of what I have said to you at least five times. You are driving me nearly to drink with your unwillingness or inability to understand what I have tried to tell you about this on other threads! FIRST, I never "accused [you] of being too soft," but only of being unwilling to agree with the pope on this subject. SECOND, I never said that a priest with an attraction to other men is guilty of a "moral fault," as you yet again have falsely stated. Only "acting out" results in "moral fault." Please allow the dramatic character of this present confrontation, Gene, be the force that drives into your PERMANENT consciousness the things that the pope and I are REALLY saying about this subject!

A side note, Gene ... You have begun repeatedly to equate "homosexually oriented" men with "effeminate" men. I can't believe that you do this, even though you live in northern California! Many men with the "same sex attraction disorder" do not give this away through effeminate characteristics. Conversely, some men who have slightly effeminate speech or gestures have NO attraction to the same sex! I recommend that you get away from this false stereotyping.

Gene, my jaw almost hit the ground when I saw the following amazing words that you addressed to Gerri: [Oh, so often I have used similar words to you, but to no effect. Maybe "the gods" were giving you a little payback on this thread.] "Learn to read, and concentrate on what the words mean, Gerri." You and I, Gene, would probably have had only 10% of the fights we have had if only you had practiced what you just preached here to Gerri! How ironic!

And how further ironic were these words from Gerri, in return:
"Eugene, I guess I have to learn how to communicate with you. I don't seem to know how to do that. I seem to rub you the wrong way all the time. I am not sure what it is that you are looking for from people who post here."

Hey, Gerri! I have been trying to find out for more than two years, and I still don't know! We almost ALL "rub [Gene] the wrong way [much of] the time." Some people are just ornery to the core. Gene is an old (64), cantankerous, curmudgeonly, opinionated, unwilling-to-change cuss who drives many people nuts, but not nuts enough to condemn him and ask that he be banned. This man is just unpredictable. One moment you love him because he says something devastatingly brilliant or wise or insightful. The next moment, you wish he would skedaddle because he is saying something dopily old-fashioned or inaccurate. Another moment you are happy he is around because he uses words very creatively and humorously. The next moment, you want to throttle him because he thinks he knows better than the pope. The next moment, you want to hug him because he has given compassionate advice to someone in pain. I still don't know what to do with the guy, Gerri. If you figure out how to communicate with him, let me know!

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 23, 2002.


>Give me some examples. What is it in particular that was >liberalized and stripped away? Just curious.

Hi Farrell,

First a disclaimer that I don't think we should necessarily go back to the way things were in the past. I just think balance and discipline is in order, in my humble opinion.

For one, religious education. I look back to the time I was a child, and while I was nominally raised Catholic, I learned the basic prayers--I realize there were holes in my education. I didn't actually see a Catechism, let alone hold one in my hand, until the revised one was released when I was in college. (It is my understanding that in recent years they've been beefing up the religious ed program, so that's good...but, for example, I wouldn't have known a thing about fasting before Communion if it weren't for my mom.) I know a lot of lapsed older Catholics that know more about the faith than younger practicing ones. Quite often many fundamentalist friends will challenge Catholics with scripture and a great deal of Catholics don't know how to answer them.

I'm also not too keen with how communion is received, and the fact that they moved the Blessed Sacrament to the side of the altar with many churches. Of course the state of the heart is most important when you receive Communion, but I'm not too keen on taking Communion by the hand. I'm not judging the next person who does it--I've even done it when I had a cold. But if they did away with that, I would not complain. To me it opens too many doors of abuse, where people forget about the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I've seen people take the Host to their seat with them, and then eat it. I've also heard of kids sticking the Host to chewing gum and leaving it under the pews. I've read surveys of Catholics that I found downright depressing: more than 60%, some say up to 75% of Catholics do not believe in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Another example are acts of faith, like not eating meat on Fridays. They lifted the ban on meat throughout the year except Lent, as long as Catholics did some other form of penance. But I never see that done.

And from a visual standpoint, this is my very humble opinion and an aesthetic opinion: I don't think we need to return to Rococo, but I'm not too big on the spare, blocky, oversimplified modern churches, and taking out the kneelers. What? We can't kneel to pray anymore? Does that damage our fragile egos?

There's a book called "Ugly as Sin" by Michael S. Rose that I'd like to read sometime that talks about the problems with modern Catholic churches. In some ways it sounds like a very humorous book, and in other ways he makes a lot of important points. I work as an artist/designer and I very much believe in the correlation between visual/music atmosphere and how conducive it is to human thought and behavior.

I hope that answers your questions, and thank you, everyone for the warm welcome. :-)

-- Susan Doe (Anon@noemail.com), April 23, 2002.


Hi Everyone:

After reading John's post, and after trying to look at the 'big picture,' I think probably, and sorrowfully, the Pope is right to say that homosexually-oriented men cannot be ordained.

The big picture is that if, say 50% (which some estimate) of the priesthood is gay, that would present a TREMENDOUS temptation to them AND it would also present a sort of 'pack' mentality which would be MOST divisive amongst the priesthood. There are already many reports that suggest that this is happening and has been happening for decades, and it is driving away many good men.

Additionally, two years ago, the Kansas City Star reported that the AIDS death rate amongst priests is 3 to 4 times higher than the average public. IF this is true, then I think it's safe to say that these men are not able to keep chaste.

We must get back to the Bible and the catechism. Without those 'rules of faith' we will have no faith! There is wisdom there that has been neglected for TOO long. Paul speaks of sexual sin as being 'sin committed against one's own soul.' Sin corrupts.

So, anyway, I expect that that will be one of the outcomes of the meetings this week.

It is not unloving to tell someone that there is cyanide in their drink, and it is not unloving to tell people that if they commit sexual sin, the result will be death, both spiritual and possibly physical. Praise God, we CAN find forgiveness for all of our sin, but that does not mean we can EMBRACE sin, and then PRESUME upon God's goodness to forgive.

Love to All!

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 23, 2002.


Just wanted to add an addendum. I ran across this in my devotions this morning . . . I think it is applicable.

1 Corinthians 5

1. It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father's wife.

2. And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you.

3-6. For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump?

7. Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.

8. Let us, therefore, celebrate the festival, not with the old leaven, the leaven of malice and evil, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9. I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with immoral men;

10. not at all meaning the immoral of this world, or the greedy and robbers, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world.

11. But rather I wrote to you not to associate with any one who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or robber -- not even to eat with such a one.

12. For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?

13. God judges those outside. "Drive out the wicked person from among you."

Chap 6;

9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? DO NOT BE DECEIVED; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.

11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

18. Shun immorality. Every other sin which a man commits is outside the body; but the immoral man sins against his own body.

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 23, 2002.


I left the Catholic Church a long time ago, not because I think it is a bad religion. I have no malice towards it at all. I just found myself constantly struggling to believe in its doctrine and rules. I just was never comfortable with any of it. My heart just was not into it and I wanted to be part of it all so badly. I met some wonderful people in the church but found myself to be at odds with them all the time because I just couldn't believe what they believed. Do you think Jesus meant for the church to be about canon law and red caps and micas and fancy buildings filled with gold and art work..I just think Jesus meant for it to be more simple than that.

He left us with His word, His ten commandments. I read His word every day, try to follow it as best I can. I think it was Ghandi who said, "Sprituality without sacrifice is no spirituality at all." The Lord wants our hands, wants our sacrifices, wants us to just live a simple, good life and bring others close to Him. He wants us to use our gifts he has given us to glorify him. I try to do that every day of my life. I just can't do it the Catholic way. I don't know why.

You are truly blessed for having been gifted with such a strong faith in an institutionalized, organized religion.

I envy all of you for having found a faith that you so strongly believe in and so strongly defend. It must be so gratifying to feel that way about your religion.

It just seems so complex to me and I don't get it. I don't get the power given to other human beings. I don't get how the church is run like a business and it is - not just the catholic church, other religions as well.

May God forgive me if the catholic church is the one and true religion and I cannot follow it. I have tried, Lord, I have tried. How does one get to believe like all of you do? I would like to believe what you do, but I just can't. Please pray for me. I do not want to go to hell when I die.

I have no doubt that there is a God but I just don't know which path to take. I do not understand organized religion and every church I've been to thinks theirs is the only true religion, the only path to God. I gave up the struggle long ago but feel like a man without a home (spiritually speaking, of course)

What is it that makes you feel so strongly about your religion? What is it that makes you think this is it? This is the one and only path to God? I am interested in knowing.

-- Karl (nursek24312@aol.com), April 23, 2002.


Dear Gail:
You were the one who authored the thread we now labor in. I know you're warning of the polarities we see every day in our Church; with some going far left, and others, the ''conservatives'' never giving in.

It's strange that I, who am judged to be an old curmudgeon and a bad-mouther of gentle Christians --have been practically alone in speaking for the less-fortunate men of our Church. These are not the brazen sinners that joyfully proclaim God as too good to be a homophobe. Or the real and imagined pedophiles who have sinned outrageously against man and God, whether priests or not.

I'm referring to PURE men, morally asexual by reason of their indifference to woman. And putatively, only good for loving other men.

I'm apprehensive about stating these categories in the tone of an expert. I'm not that familiar with the lifestyle of the ''gay'' man, which is mainly brought to light in the stereotyped, immoral form. When two men are openly affectionate or even scandalous. Or, at best, by men who hold down certain clearly ''gay'' jobs. The hairdressers, etc., (Forgive me, male heterosexual stylists!)

I just use my ''Go-given intelligence'', as Fred likes to put it. I wonder if a Catholic has the right to pass judgments in a matter so personal, about men who share a starnge characteristic like this? I mean, even a Pope may not understand this inner personality. Why would he?

He (as well as we) understands clearly the SINFUL proclivities we all associate with these men. It's a no-brainer. But, surely ALL these men aren't by nature immoral? Surely, some --in the 2,000-year span of our history as a Church, have served God faithfully??? Even as saints and martyrs. I can't help thinking that's a clear probability, knowing myself the omnipotence of God, and the wonders of His grace.

Now, this is all I've proposed in our forum. I have NOT been seen posting any other viewpoint. If our Holy Father has determined never to allow a man of these characteristics to be ordained a priest, he is certainly in authority. Whether God has made His Will known to John Paul II in the matter, I really can't say. Because as I understand it, the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals; not altogether without ''blind spots''. If morals aren't always transparent, except in the confessional; I don't know what the Pope's criteria will demand.

I suspect the devil will have himself a grand time, all stemming from this very crisis he's forced on us, using our own inherent sexual temptations. If we see a scandal now; imagine when a thoroughly proper and even HOLY young man, about to receive Holy Orders, is falsely accused by an enemy. As John says; they don't have to look like drag queens. Anyone could be maliciously destroyed under the prevailing suspicions.

In fact, many simply won't dare realise their true vocation. They'll be under such a microscope forever, who would believe in their innocence? Let's not even talk about the empty seminaries.

Under those conditions, it's even conceivable the next Pope will be FORCED to end the rule of celibacy, and ONLY married men will receive Holy Orders!

All because an effeminate man is deemed too risky to ordain; even if he could be a true saint.

Yet, I'm the conservative who has gone far left for the sake of Christian charity toward a misunderstood individual. And I personally have met pure homosexuals; of excellent spiritual and personal character. No, I haven't known them in their moments of temptation; but after all, I haven't known John Gecik or Chris Butler, or anybody else in those moments either. I just feel I owe them the benefit of the doubt, because that's the Golden Rule.

It's not easy being conservative. I'm called a bigot. I'm called medieval, and ''dopily old-fashioned.'' Yes, I can question the wisdom of a Pope, John. I'm a free man.

But, whatever His Holiness is inspired to do, I will submit with love to the Papal authority; even if I think it's a mistake. I'm not like you.

You feel he's the last word. I won't try to change your mind. I'm not a new Cathoic of the post-Vatican II stripe. My faith is the one my Mom and Dad reared me in; and I'm still closely attuned to Pius XII. You know; ''Hitler's Pope''--?

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 23, 2002.


Hi Karl:

I read your post and am very touched by your sensitive heart and yearning to know Him.

First, let me say, christianity is all about 'relationship,' i.e., relationship to God and to His body, the church, through the shed blood of Jesus. By His work on the cross, we have all been invited into an active, living relationship with God. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life," and He is. It is by this GRACE that we are delivered from the woes of this world, through believing in Jesus, making Him the Lord of our lives, relying upon His grace to continually save us from sin.

No other religion has a savior! None!! No other religion is based on the GRACE of God!

You see, Karl, no one is capable of living a sin free life without the abundant GRACE of our Heavenly Father that is obtained through the free gift of God -- Jesus. Learning to draw on that grace is, for most of us, a lifetime endeavor. But it comes through our 'relationship' to God through Jesus Christ, and His church.

Yes, churches, can seem to be too businesslike, too institionalized, and sometimes devoid of spirit. The Bible says the 'letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.' If we overemphasize the letter, it kills; if we overemphasize the Spirit, we become open to all kinds of heresies and goofy notions. There must be balance to be healthy!

Government, however, is necessary because we are human and without government, there would exist anarchy. The church would not exist without government. And yes, Christ did establish a governmental church when He handed Peter the keys to the kingdom, and when he prepared His disciples to become apostles, establishing churches wherever they went.

What makes christianity so beautiful is JESUS. What makes catholocism so beautiful is that it is based on 2000 years of faithful, spirit-filled men, who loved the Lord Jesus with all their hearts, and who have helped to expand our knowledge of the HOLY -- whose treasury is available to us all!

The Lord God almighty is worthy to be praised! He is beautiful beyond description.

My prayer for you Karl is that you will come to REALLY know Him. I pray that He will pour His GRACE upon you, that He will pour his love upon you, that he will SET YOU FREE from bondage to sin and death so that you may walk in His marvelous light. That your heart will be enlightened, that you will know the purpose of His calling. That He will strengthen and enable you to surrender your entire body in service to Him. Amen!

GRACE, GRACE, GRACE is what Christianity is all about. Sometimes we get bogged down with 'works' and forget that is by grace that we saved. But don't let that dissuade you from finding a church or parish that believes the Bible is the word of God, that believes that Christ Jesus is divine, He died, was buried and rose again! That worships Him in Spirit AND in truth!

Look, we've all been to churches that seem 'dead' in their religion. They do exist, BUT there are many who are ALIVE! I pray the Lord will help you find a body of believers that will help you on your journey of faith to realize the fullness of His love.

My heart goes out to you, Karl, and I will keep you in my prayers. This faith is for EVERYONE!

Love Gail

P.S. You might benefit from reading St. Augustine's 'Confessions,' who describes his journey of faith, and who really had a handle on GRACE!

-- Gail Roth (rothfarms@socket.net), April 23, 2002.


Dear Gail, Thank you for the beautiful answer. No one has ever given me an answer like that before. I am going to copy and paste that and put it in my Bible. I could actually "feel" the spirit while reading your words! Your words made me feel so peaceful and so hopeful.

Thank you for keeping me in your prayers. I have the feeling that God will certainly listen to yours.

Maybe I will stop into the Catholic Church again, it's been many years and now is quite an unusual time to go back, but maybe there is a plan here and a purpose under heaven. Who knows?

I will pray for you to, Gail. You sound like a vey special person. :)

-- Karl ((nursek24312@aol.com),), April 23, 2002.


Karl:

I just wanted you to know that that really was the Spirit talking to you. Not me, but HIM! He loves you, Karl, and beckons you to come near.

When you go to church, open your heart to Him, ask Him to come in, to reveal Himself to you. He says, "I stand at the door and knock. If anyone opens the door, I will come into him and sup with him."

Bless you,

Gail

-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), April 23, 2002.


Jmj

Hello, Gene.

I would like to reply to some of the things that you wrote. But before I do, I want to apologize for referring to you as "old (64)." That age is not "old." My own dear, saintly Dad will be 80 next month, and he is more alive than I am at 50.

On reflection, I realized that my intent was not to refer to you as someone "old and worn out." Rather, I was thinking of the fact that you cling to some "old" things that you ought to discard. Don't get me wrong. I know well that not all "new" things are good; most aren't. And I know well that not all "old" things are bad; most aren't. But some old things arebad -- very bad. And I've known you long enough and well enough to realize that you are still clinging to at least a few ideas that the Church never officially sponsored -- or formerly sponsored, but has now left behind. I knew this to be true even before you basically admitted it just now, using words that no one ought to be proud to write: "I'm not a new Catholic of the post-Vatican II stripe. My faith is the one my Mom and Dad reared me in; and I'm still closely attuned to Pius XII."

You were only about 25 when Vatican II began. It is wrong for you to speak proudly of not being a child of Vatican II. As the popes have said, the Council was a gift to the Church by the Holy Spirit. Have you read its documents? Do you own and read the new Catechism? Or are you stuck in your teen years of the 1950s?

Actually, Gene, I believe that you are neither a "Vatican II Catholic" nor a "Pius XII Catholic." You think that you are the latter, and I did mention your clinging to some bad "old" things. But you cannot fully be a "Pius XII Catholic," because Catholics of his era would never have dreamt of questioning the "wisdom" of the pope, as you have sometimes questioned Pope John Paul II's wisdom, disciplines, and even ordinary teachings. If you had taken Vatican II to heart, or if you had been the kind of very strong supporter of the papacy as Catholics were under Pius XII, you would know that you don't have the freedom to question the wisdom of the pope concerning who may enter seminaries. No, Gene, you are not an "old" 64, but apparently a young and rebellious 64!

Speaking of the "personality" of a man suffering from Same-Sex Attraction Disorder, you wrote: "I mean, even a Pope may not understand this inner personality. Why would he?"
Why would he? Are you serious? The pope has been a priest for over fifty years and has heard countless thousands of confessions, has counseled young people and priests, etc.. I have no doubt that he has had extensive exposure to this sad phenomenon, both in person and through reading. My question instead is "Why would he not understand this inner personality?"

You continued: "He (as well as we) understands clearly the SINFUL proclivities we all associate with these men. It's a no-brainer. But, surely ALL these men aren't by nature immoral?"
I have already written this more than once, so maybe the "third time's a charm." NO ONE said that "all these men [are] ... immoral." As I told you before (but without yet seeing any evidence that you read it) the key thing here is to use common sense. Many such men ARE already immoral before entering seminaries, and the Church does not want to contribute to increasing the number that fall into sin by allowing them to be exposed to the "near occasions of sin" (in a seminary and in parish life). COMMON SENSE!

Suppose animals could go to school and learn there. Would educators allow even one fox to be a student in a school for chickens? No, for a fox cannot resist the temptation to take advantage of his surroundings. In like manner, we should not allow men with disordered appetites to be students in a school (or residents in a rectory) for normal men who want to be holy priests. Very few of them would be able to resist temptation. We must not take even a single chance any more. You need to give up your romantic notions (about the few who may remain pure for life) and adopt common sense.

Later, you wrote: "Let's not even talk about the empty seminaries. Under those conditions, it's even conceivable the next Pope will be FORCED to end the rule of celibacy, and ONLY married men will receive Holy Orders! All because an effeminate man is deemed too risky to ordain; even if he could be a true saint. "
Oh, ye of little faith! And little knowledge, I might add! How did you miss the fact, posted here at the forum more than once, that the number of vocations worldwide has been increasing for at least a decade, and has even begun to increase in the U.S.. My prediction is that, with the seminaries renewed by the removal of men who don't belong there, the ranks of good seminarians will explode. Have you not read the revelations that good men who have believed themselves to have priestly vocations have been sent packing because of their intolerance of perversion or have gone home on their own because their seminary had a disgusting subculture? Now those good men will be able to enter or return to the seminary, and there will be an abundance of priests, normal and holy priests. And again you mislabel those with SSAD as "effeminate!" Their vocation is in the world, where each of them is much more likely to become (using your words) "a true saint."

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 25, 2002.


John,
If you didn't have a compulsion to always get a ''checkmate'' out of every discussion, I wouldn't have to bother with replies. I'm not looking for a victory here. I'm stating a simple enough view. I never even claimed it had to be the only view. If I didn't make it clear, I want you to know that.

You make a big deal out of common sense; as if you had to lead me to it and introduce me. (I told you before, but without yet seeing any evidence that you read it the key thing here is to use common sense. Many such men ARE already immoral before entering seminaries, and the Church does not want to contribute to increasing the number that fall into sin by allowing them to be exposed to near occasions of sin in a seminary and in parish life. COMMON SENSE!) --Did you imagine I was blind to this?

Well, if this point of view is the ONLY common-sense point of view; let's picture a bishop interviewing new seminarians. --The way he'll get to the bottom of it, I guess, is ask: ''How many girls have you dated? Were you in love with a woman in the past? Do you approve of homosexuality?''

In a jiffy he'll find out if that man is a homosexual, and cross him off his list of novices; RIGHT? Or-- maybe he'll check with the parish grapevine. ''Is X a good boy?'' He won't be able to ask X's confessor.

So, if Predator X doesn't declare his homosexuality, (or other leanings) the Novice Master may have to study this man's mannerisms. Is his little wrist suitable for the priesthood? Would he pose a risk because he has no girlfriends? Or if his childhood was ''dysfunctional,'' and he had a ''domineering mother'', do we dare ordain him?

Or else: ''This is a manly, buff, hair-on-chest gigolo type!!! A John Travolta??? He'll do FINE!''

See where I'm going, John? Common sense is, either everybody's a son or everybody's adopted. No picky-picky seminary profiles to select priests. --That's why I said, ''empty seminaries.'' You can level suspicions on just about anybody. Yes-- I agree that the usual suspects now running the seminaries are definitely going to be relieved of duty. But even that's not a quick fix. Are they going to CONFESS they were running a Gay Mafia? No!

---

I will ignore your intemperate remarks about my upbringing and my Catholic credentials. You don't know me; and you don't know pre-Vatican II Catholicism, apparently. It is not unorthodox to question the Pope's wisdom. There would be no point, if the thing weren't extremely controversial; I would just accept his judgment with no second thoughts. I will anyway, even if I suspect his decision is not for the best. Because God will work His Divine Will in any case. You latched onto my statement like a canon lawyer. Simply stated I'm a faithful follower of John Paul II, even if I have ties to the past. Indeed, he has the same ones himself.

Quote:''You [would] know that you don't have the freedom to question the wisdom of the pope concerning who may enter seminaries. No, Gene, you are not an old 64 but apparently a young and rebellious 64!''--

What a crock! I haven't asserted FREEDOM to question the pope's wisdom, John. Lest of all in these matters. He is truly under the protection of the Holy Spirit. I said I was able to. Because I'm a free man. But, if you read carefully, I stated my loving unity with him overall, even if I should think he could be mistaken. I'm not running for Pope, John. I haven't even asserted any authority over YOU! Get real!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 25, 2002.


Jmj

Hi, Gene.
You stated that I "have a compulsion to always get a 'checkmate' out of every discussion."

That's not true. I simply respond. In the case of something not a matter of "fact" (but controversy), I respond with a different opinion, if I have one. And in the case of matters of fact, I respond when someone makes a mistake.

What appears to be bugging you is that I am not ignorant nor timid nor reticent, as are lots of people with whom you apparently have conversed. They will not respond to you, because they lack facts and strong opinions ... or they "chicken out" ... or they are very quiet in temperament. I'm not like them, as you have grown painfully aware.

The facts are that (1) you and I have different opinions about some things and (2) you write lots of messages here, some of which contain factual errors. This results in my responding with opinions to those with which I disagree ... and responding with facts to correct errors. If you come around to agreeing with my opinions, that's fine. If you admit your errors, that's fine too. But if you keep coming back to defend what I consider the indefensible, I may or may not continue to respond.
There is nothing wrong with this. It's to be expected at a discussion forum. What is wrong is to try to intimidate me into silence by complaining that I am always out for a "checkmate!"

Gene, I will accept what you have just said in response to me, even those parts with which I disagree, without debating it further.
However the following were not rhetorical questions, so I wonder what the answers are: "Have you read the documents of Vatican II? Do you own and read the new Catechism?"

God bless you.
John


-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 27, 2002.


John,
Why do you flatter yourself? I take note of all your very capable responses. But do you think I'm ''painfully aware''? What an expression!

The last time you had a burr under your saddle, you said you had administered ''the worst butt-kicking I'd ever had.'' Is that your ''charism''? --You're kicking butt in this forum?

Yes, I have a catechism; I read it. I have bookmarked more than a few apologetics websites, and I have a wealth of Catholic experience. Even so, I always pre-qualify what I'm saying, for the benefit of those who might not agree. I state what is merely my own feeling, what is a Catholic tenet, altogether irreproachable, and what is open to dispute. I don't claim to merit any more nor less than the other Catholics in our midst. When I become authoritative in tone, it's always against those who attack our faith.

You won't let other opinions be taken seriously. In these previous posts, I made sure I explained, my position is not irreversible, nor is it Catholic teaching as such. You can't abide with me saying that I could disagree with a Pope's position; but I already mentioned I will give loving assent if it becomes a formal teaching.

Yet, you maintain I've been rebellious. This is from a point of view of yours --making any sound the Pope makes the absolute truth. If you believe this, FINE. --If the catechism staes this is a Catholic tenet of our faith, SHOW me. I don't understand that sense in our catechism.

We are under a filial responsibility to him; as his children. But I know he's human. He hasn't been given any charism we don't know about. His many sundry confessions of diverse sinners may give him great insight. Yet, he has not been speaking for the Holy Ghost in many of his statements; and even if he did so, I don't need for YOU to parse his words for me. Let him speak for himself.

Meanwhile; contain your animosity to a level of respect and I'll be respectful to you. Otherwise, we have nothing to say to each other. It shall not be my choice, if we have a falling out. I haven't touched on anything that insulted you. You have every right to your own opinion.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 27, 2002.


Hi, Gene.

I'm glad and relieved to know that you have a Catechism and have read it. The reason I asked about it is that, in 28 months, you have never referred to it or quoted from it. It made me worry that you never purchased one or, worse yet, that you disagreed with it. I conceived of it being potentially true that you disagreed with the Catechism because I have noticed your occasional reluctance to signal adherence/assent/submission of mind and will to certain "ordinary" teachings of the pope. Many teachings in the Catechism are from the Church's ordinary Magisterium, rather than extraordinary, but are nonetheless to be assumed correct by us.

You went overboard (mischaracterizing my beliefs) just now by stating: "This is from a point of view of yours -- making any sound the Pope makes the absolute truth." Never have I said such a thing. You should try to avoid putting words in my mouth after making unwarranted assumptions. A pope is capable of sinning, making mistakes in judgment, and making factual errors on non-magisterial matters. But I believe that part of being a Catholic is for me and you not to publicly criticize his small sins or his judgments (e.g., here on forum), because we are guilty of far worse sins and far poorer judgment than his, and because a pope is far more likely to be right than we are if we disagree with his judgment.

I am sorry to learn that you have not read the documents of Vatican II. You would find them extremely beneficial to your spiritual life. They would improve your apologetics where they are deficient. And they would help you to improve your assent to the Magisterium. (For example ... You just wrote, "I will give loving assent if it becomes a formal teaching." If you had read Vatican II, you would know that you must give assent to any papal teaching, not just "formal teaching.")
The documents are beautifully written and can be found here.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 28, 2002.


Thank you, John. You've been so patient with me, and I've been in ignorance so long. Help somebody else now.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), April 28, 2002.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ