Here are a couple of strange conversations, not on the same level, which will be obvious -- but offered FWIW...
1. Today I went to see a movie; I saw "The Greatest Game Ever Played" (very enjoyable, although following a hackneyed plot line, and full of emotion-tugging moments as you'd expect). The ticket cost $6.25; I gave the clerk $10.25, pointing out the quarter I'd slipped into the little slot under the glass (why do theaters always have this glass? It reminds me of the Days Inn in South Central LA I stayed in once on a business trip).
She gave me back $3.75, ignoring the quarter.
"Wait a minute -- I gave you a quarter," I said, expecting her to give me back $4 even." "Well, it's easier that way," she said, chirpily. Then, after a beat..."Oh, did you want me to give you a dollar for four quarters?" What I really wanted to say was, "Honey, the point of customer service is to make it easier for the customer, not to make it easier for the employee..." but I smiled and moved on.
2. Last Thursday I was visiting Catholic patients at the hospital. One woman had her daughter visiting. When distributing the Eucharist in the hospital or home, it's appropriate to give communion to any family or friends present as well; but I also know they may not be Catholic, or may not be active; so I try to broach the question delicately. In this case, the daughter indicated she wasn't really a Catholic (I suspect she'd been baptized, but never catechized); when she shook her head no, the mother said: "it's only a wafer..."
I quickly picked my jaw up from the floor and muttered something like, "receiving the Eucharist is an act of faith, saying, 'I'm a Catholic'--if you want to become Catholic, I'll help you, but--this is not the time..."
Sunday, October 02, 2005
What obsolete skill are you?
You are 'Latin'. Even among obsolete skills, the
tongue of the ancient Romans is a real
anachronism. With its profusion of different
cases and conjugations, Latin is more than a
language; it is a whole different way of
thinking about things.
You are very classy, meaning that you value the
classics. You value old things, good things
which have stood the test of time. You value
things which have been proven worthy and
valuable, even if no one else these days sees
them that way. Your life is touched by a
certain 'pietas', or piety; perhaps you are
even a Stoic. Nonetheless, you have a certain
fascination with the grotesque and the profane.
Also, the modern world rejects you like a bad
transplant. Your problem is that Latin has
been obsolete for a long time.
What obsolete skill are you?
(Courtesy of Shrine of the Holy Whapping)
Saturday, October 01, 2005
To hell with the prom
A Catholic high school in New York has had it with the pagan orgy of drugs, sex, booze, conspicuous consumption and peer coercion that too often is the high school prom. Click on the headline, and look for the "March" and "September" letters linked on the site.
I wrote the principal a letter, congratulating him. How often we bemoan Catholic colleges and high schools for not doing the right thing; let's give credit where it's due...
I wrote the principal a letter, congratulating him. How often we bemoan Catholic colleges and high schools for not doing the right thing; let's give credit where it's due...
Is your fruit sweet or sour? (Sunday Homily)
We heard two stories about a vineyard.
In the first story, God looks for good fruit,
but finds only wild—that is, sour—grapes.
In the Gospel, it gets worse:
the stingy, fearful tenants give no fruit at all!
That’s often how it works:
if our fruit is sour,
soon we have no fruit at all.
Remember what Our Lord also taught us:
he is the Vine—you and I are branches.
He shares his Divine Life with us—
the life of the Spirit.
The more that Life, that “sap,”
is running through us,
the more alive we are!
We’ll be fruitful—sweet, abundant fruit!
There are many lessons here.
One: consider the Vineyard.
This parish, this community,
this is the part of the vineyard
where God chose to plant us.
When the branches are well-rooted,
they find life right where they are.
But sometimes we look around:
gee, could be nicer over there!
So we bop around, vineyard to vineyard:
try this one this week; try another next.
Sometimes we say, “I’m fine on my own.”
We wonder why Sunday Mass
matters so much.
This is where God planted us.
The more connected—rooted—we are,
the more fruitful we will be.
Sometimes, we think,
“well, I don’t get anything from Mass,
or the parish.”
That’s not the point:
what we "get" from the Vine
is the life of Christ, and it flows, abundantly;
there is absolutely no lack of His Life here!
But this image of the Vine
is about what we produce,
what we share with others,
which comes from drawing in,
drawing deep, that sap,
that life of the Vine.
I understand we’re all at different places in life.
But I will challenge anyone who says,
“I don’t get anything out of Mass.”
You know what I say to that?
It’s what we put around the vines!
“Fertilizer!”
When I was a kid,
I’d go to the fridge, and complain,
“there’s nothing to eat!”
Sure there was: if I was hungry.
Sometimes we come to Mass,
and we make it someone else’s job
if Mass “touches” me.
I think that way as a priest!
If something isn’t “just right” at Mass,
I’ll make that an excuse for why
it wasn’t all I wanted it to be…for me.
I’ll say it again: “fertilizer!”
So, maybe we say,
“It was the choir…the cantor…
the reader…the sound system…the priest…
too hot…too cold…someone distracted me…”
Nah, baby nah! Those are excuses.
Yes, we can all do a better job.
But if you came in,
speaking nothing but Chinese,
He’s here!
So if father is making sense: wonderful!
If not—tune me out: and tune into Jesus!
The True Vine is here—tap in!
With the right attitude,
things will happen for us.
Now this image of the Vine,
the branches, the fruit,
is about a lot more than Mass.
Sunday Eucharist makes concrete for us
the reality we’re called to live
the rest of the time.
It’s our “check-in”;
it’s when we’re fed by the Lord,
Given another burst of that Sap,
the Life of the Spirit.
But then, we live it,
Sunday-to-Sunday,
sharing our fruit—
which is solely what the fruit is for:
Not for us, but others:
In our families, at school,
in the community,
changing lives, especially the poor.
Pope John Paul II taught
that the Eucharist must always lead
to social action, working for justice.
Fruitfulness: it’s a way of life.
When we trust that life of the Spirit,
Flowing in us,
will always produce abundant fruit,
We aren’t afraid of being “picked”;
We aren’t afraid of being fruitful.
Sometimes we are afraid of being “too fruitful”:
With our family life, in sharing with others,
We fear we’ll be stretched—we’ll run out.
This Sunday is “Respect Life” Sunday,
And we recall how
our world is afraid of the gift of life.
“No room; don’t want too much new life;
We don’t have enough for the weak and the sick.”
But when we tap deeply into the Life of the Vine—
That is, the Spirit Jesus shares with us—
we overcome that fear:
And he does in us
what we can never do on our own.
Then there’s fruit enough, t
here’s room enough;
we can have a posture of welcome:
for new life in our families,
for the poor, outsiders,
for people who are different.
And, we welcome opportunities to be reconciled:
Sometimes we can be so stingy
in sharing the ‘fruit’ of mercy.
The Vine—Jesus Christ—
intends us to be fruitful.
He gives us his Life, his Spirit,
To bear abundant, sweet fruit, not sour;
Sour fruit will soon lead to no fruit at all.
In the first story, God looks for good fruit,
but finds only wild—that is, sour—grapes.
In the Gospel, it gets worse:
the stingy, fearful tenants give no fruit at all!
That’s often how it works:
if our fruit is sour,
soon we have no fruit at all.
Remember what Our Lord also taught us:
he is the Vine—you and I are branches.
He shares his Divine Life with us—
the life of the Spirit.
The more that Life, that “sap,”
is running through us,
the more alive we are!
We’ll be fruitful—sweet, abundant fruit!
There are many lessons here.
One: consider the Vineyard.
This parish, this community,
this is the part of the vineyard
where God chose to plant us.
When the branches are well-rooted,
they find life right where they are.
But sometimes we look around:
gee, could be nicer over there!
So we bop around, vineyard to vineyard:
try this one this week; try another next.
Sometimes we say, “I’m fine on my own.”
We wonder why Sunday Mass
matters so much.
This is where God planted us.
The more connected—rooted—we are,
the more fruitful we will be.
Sometimes, we think,
“well, I don’t get anything from Mass,
or the parish.”
That’s not the point:
what we "get" from the Vine
is the life of Christ, and it flows, abundantly;
there is absolutely no lack of His Life here!
But this image of the Vine
is about what we produce,
what we share with others,
which comes from drawing in,
drawing deep, that sap,
that life of the Vine.
I understand we’re all at different places in life.
But I will challenge anyone who says,
“I don’t get anything out of Mass.”
You know what I say to that?
It’s what we put around the vines!
“Fertilizer!”
When I was a kid,
I’d go to the fridge, and complain,
“there’s nothing to eat!”
Sure there was: if I was hungry.
Sometimes we come to Mass,
and we make it someone else’s job
if Mass “touches” me.
I think that way as a priest!
If something isn’t “just right” at Mass,
I’ll make that an excuse for why
it wasn’t all I wanted it to be…for me.
I’ll say it again: “fertilizer!”
So, maybe we say,
“It was the choir…the cantor…
the reader…the sound system…the priest…
too hot…too cold…someone distracted me…”
Nah, baby nah! Those are excuses.
Yes, we can all do a better job.
But if you came in,
speaking nothing but Chinese,
He’s here!
So if father is making sense: wonderful!
If not—tune me out: and tune into Jesus!
The True Vine is here—tap in!
With the right attitude,
things will happen for us.
Now this image of the Vine,
the branches, the fruit,
is about a lot more than Mass.
Sunday Eucharist makes concrete for us
the reality we’re called to live
the rest of the time.
It’s our “check-in”;
it’s when we’re fed by the Lord,
Given another burst of that Sap,
the Life of the Spirit.
But then, we live it,
Sunday-to-Sunday,
sharing our fruit—
which is solely what the fruit is for:
Not for us, but others:
In our families, at school,
in the community,
changing lives, especially the poor.
Pope John Paul II taught
that the Eucharist must always lead
to social action, working for justice.
Fruitfulness: it’s a way of life.
When we trust that life of the Spirit,
Flowing in us,
will always produce abundant fruit,
We aren’t afraid of being “picked”;
We aren’t afraid of being fruitful.
Sometimes we are afraid of being “too fruitful”:
With our family life, in sharing with others,
We fear we’ll be stretched—we’ll run out.
This Sunday is “Respect Life” Sunday,
And we recall how
our world is afraid of the gift of life.
“No room; don’t want too much new life;
We don’t have enough for the weak and the sick.”
But when we tap deeply into the Life of the Vine—
That is, the Spirit Jesus shares with us—
we overcome that fear:
And he does in us
what we can never do on our own.
Then there’s fruit enough, t
here’s room enough;
we can have a posture of welcome:
for new life in our families,
for the poor, outsiders,
for people who are different.
And, we welcome opportunities to be reconciled:
Sometimes we can be so stingy
in sharing the ‘fruit’ of mercy.
The Vine—Jesus Christ—
intends us to be fruitful.
He gives us his Life, his Spirit,
To bear abundant, sweet fruit, not sour;
Sour fruit will soon lead to no fruit at all.
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Tom Delay & the Apostate GOP
When I worked in politics, one of the wise people who taught me how things worked had a saying that is both a little shocking and really funny:
They say you shouldn't kick a man when he's down; but I say--there's no better time!
Now, I'm not really kicking poor Tom Delay -- who, to my mind, is almost certainly neither the villain his liberal enemies paint him to be, nor the hero his allies assert he is -- but getting at part of the point of that witticism: that such times are opportunities for reappraisal and, one hopes, a change for the better, and therefore a time ripe for action.
And the present moment of GOP weakness and anxiety is a good moment for action. To speak spiritually: it is a conversion moment; let us hope the GOP takes advantage of it; and let us help the Republicans to do so.
Another thought on this Delay story: it's good to remember that, in politics, sometimes the situation is like the Iran-Iraq War from some years back--i.e., there are no good guys to root for.
Politically motivated charges of crime are sadly common enough that I discount this one, particularly when its the vague, "conspiracy" charge. And a lot of laws regulating political action, including political spending, are likewise vague and problematic; a lot of them should never have been enacted, and many of them deserve to be struck down. The law should be clear and easy to understand, and thus to obey.
But on the other side we have Tom Delay, who probably isn't the slimeball he's being painted to be--but he could be. There's a lot of slimy people slinking around in the lobbying business, and politicians do business with them. The pols may not merit any prosecution for crime -- because they may not have committed any specific crime -- but they do deserve moral censure. I don't know if that includes Tom Delay and Jack Abrahamoff; but the whole thing looks bad--it could be just what it looks like.
Also, the sad thing is that Tom Delay has been very effective; and at various times, he has used his effectiveness for the right causes. A lot of this is explained, I believe, as retribution for that effectiveness. Yet it is also true that Delay and the rest of the GOP leadership has lost their way and their credibility. The result is a lot fewer people care about this than might have otherwise -- if the GOP had kept faith with its constituencies.
They say you shouldn't kick a man when he's down; but I say--there's no better time!
Now, I'm not really kicking poor Tom Delay -- who, to my mind, is almost certainly neither the villain his liberal enemies paint him to be, nor the hero his allies assert he is -- but getting at part of the point of that witticism: that such times are opportunities for reappraisal and, one hopes, a change for the better, and therefore a time ripe for action.
And the present moment of GOP weakness and anxiety is a good moment for action. To speak spiritually: it is a conversion moment; let us hope the GOP takes advantage of it; and let us help the Republicans to do so.
Another thought on this Delay story: it's good to remember that, in politics, sometimes the situation is like the Iran-Iraq War from some years back--i.e., there are no good guys to root for.
Politically motivated charges of crime are sadly common enough that I discount this one, particularly when its the vague, "conspiracy" charge. And a lot of laws regulating political action, including political spending, are likewise vague and problematic; a lot of them should never have been enacted, and many of them deserve to be struck down. The law should be clear and easy to understand, and thus to obey.
But on the other side we have Tom Delay, who probably isn't the slimeball he's being painted to be--but he could be. There's a lot of slimy people slinking around in the lobbying business, and politicians do business with them. The pols may not merit any prosecution for crime -- because they may not have committed any specific crime -- but they do deserve moral censure. I don't know if that includes Tom Delay and Jack Abrahamoff; but the whole thing looks bad--it could be just what it looks like.
Also, the sad thing is that Tom Delay has been very effective; and at various times, he has used his effectiveness for the right causes. A lot of this is explained, I believe, as retribution for that effectiveness. Yet it is also true that Delay and the rest of the GOP leadership has lost their way and their credibility. The result is a lot fewer people care about this than might have otherwise -- if the GOP had kept faith with its constituencies.
My brief burst of modest blog-fame
Over the past few days, I've gotten a burst of traffic, owing to a post I made several days ago. I've been fascinated by how this happened: I made a post on Friday; on Monday, Father Jim Tucker linked it in a post on his blog (and was far more colorful -- and brief! -- in his comments than I); then, on Tuesday, the maven of Catholic blogging, Amy Wellborn, links both Fr Jim's item, and mine, on her blog; meanwhile, Rich Leonardi does the same at his blog. It's been fascinating to note how much traffic each of these sites has generated for me. My original post generated no response; but once these other sites linked it, I was suddenly the flavor of the day.
Alas, my site meter shows my traffic has peaked. But that's okay -- I really don't have time for too much traffic! But thanks to these other bloggers (whom I have never met).
Alas, my site meter shows my traffic has peaked. But that's okay -- I really don't have time for too much traffic! But thanks to these other bloggers (whom I have never met).
Wednesday, September 28, 2005
Favorite Protestant Hymns
Perhaps its a fruit of my 10 years as a Pentecostal Evangelical, but I really like rousing Gospel music and a number of Protestant hymns -- and I wish there were a way I could share my enthusiasm for much of this music with my fellow Catholics.
An example is a hymn I'll use as part of my homily at Mass later today: "There is Power in the Blood," written by Lewis E. Jones in 1899, who wrote this song at a camp meeting at Mountain Lake Park, Maryland. Think about it--our Protestant brethren sing this rousing song in a church empty of the Blessed Sacrament, while we are infinitely privileged to adore the very Blood of our Savior at each and every Mass!
Would you be free from the burden of sin?
There’s power in the blood, power in the blood;
Would you o’er evil a victory win?
There’s wonderful power in the blood.
Refrain:
There is power, power, wonder working power
In the blood of the Lamb;
There is power, power, wonder working power
In the precious blood of the Lamb.
Would you be free from your passion and pride?
There’s power in the blood, power in the blood;
Come for a cleansing to Calvary’s tide;
There’s wonderful power in the blood.
Refrain
Would you be whiter, much whiter than snow?
There’s power in the blood, power in the blood;
Sin stains are lost in its life giving flow.
There’s wonderful power in the blood.
Refrain
Would you do service for Jesus your King?
There’s power in the blood, power in the blood;
Would you live daily His praises to sing?
There’s wonderful power in the blood.
Refrain
(Click on the headline to go to the Cyber Hymnal, where you can play a MIDI of this song.)
An example is a hymn I'll use as part of my homily at Mass later today: "There is Power in the Blood," written by Lewis E. Jones in 1899, who wrote this song at a camp meeting at Mountain Lake Park, Maryland. Think about it--our Protestant brethren sing this rousing song in a church empty of the Blessed Sacrament, while we are infinitely privileged to adore the very Blood of our Savior at each and every Mass!
Would you be free from the burden of sin?
There’s power in the blood, power in the blood;
Would you o’er evil a victory win?
There’s wonderful power in the blood.
Refrain:
There is power, power, wonder working power
In the blood of the Lamb;
There is power, power, wonder working power
In the precious blood of the Lamb.
Would you be free from your passion and pride?
There’s power in the blood, power in the blood;
Come for a cleansing to Calvary’s tide;
There’s wonderful power in the blood.
Refrain
Would you be whiter, much whiter than snow?
There’s power in the blood, power in the blood;
Sin stains are lost in its life giving flow.
There’s wonderful power in the blood.
Refrain
Would you do service for Jesus your King?
There’s power in the blood, power in the blood;
Would you live daily His praises to sing?
There’s wonderful power in the blood.
Refrain
(Click on the headline to go to the Cyber Hymnal, where you can play a MIDI of this song.)
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
xxxchurch.com -- the #1 Christian Porn Site
Before you decide I've gone completely bonkers, click on the headline above and check it out. I think what these folks are doing is great, and I think you will too.
Seriously, check out the "accountability software." And don't miss the NoHo Zone...
Seriously, check out the "accountability software." And don't miss the NoHo Zone...
More about whatchamacallit
Since we're on the subject of homosexuality, it is worth noting something curious about this discussion: the problem of language.
Gay has "baggage" as many observe. Yet it is a term in common parlance, and it has the advantage of being quite short. Context, as always, matters--not everyone who uses it, embraces the baggage; and it's a little stilted to try to talk about this subject and never use the word.
And, as much as I rue the change in this word's meaning, that fight has been lost for the time being, like it or not.
Homosexual is a more neutral term--except that it reflects a modern mindset that tends to define particular sexualities, based on the clinical model. Such a way of thinking may be ingrained in us, but it's reasonable to ask if that's a completely Catholic, biblical way of thinking about the matter.
Also, it does invite either-or thinking, and it forces one to ask: at what point is one a "homosexual"?
Same-sex attraction and related terms are often used by those affiliated with Courage, the fully Catholic apostolate to the folks we're talking about.
This is relatively new terminology that has the virtue of not compelling either-or categorization--can someone be "heterosexual" and still have "same sex" feelings? Sure. At some point, it's a problem, and its a different sort of problem at different points. I.e., that a spouse feels something toward his or her same sex doesn't necessarily mean s/he can't give him/herself in marriage. But at some point, it does prevent that, and thus is an impediment. Ask a canon lawyer (I am not one) about the details on this one.
This latter term also has the virtue of not defining people by a facet--even a very significant one--of their personality and sexuality. Unfortunately, it's the longest terminology, and needs more explaining.
But words do matter.
P.S. Fair warning--sometime rather soon, I'm going to get tired of talking about this subject--so get in your comments now!
Gay has "baggage" as many observe. Yet it is a term in common parlance, and it has the advantage of being quite short. Context, as always, matters--not everyone who uses it, embraces the baggage; and it's a little stilted to try to talk about this subject and never use the word.
And, as much as I rue the change in this word's meaning, that fight has been lost for the time being, like it or not.
Homosexual is a more neutral term--except that it reflects a modern mindset that tends to define particular sexualities, based on the clinical model. Such a way of thinking may be ingrained in us, but it's reasonable to ask if that's a completely Catholic, biblical way of thinking about the matter.
Also, it does invite either-or thinking, and it forces one to ask: at what point is one a "homosexual"?
Same-sex attraction and related terms are often used by those affiliated with Courage, the fully Catholic apostolate to the folks we're talking about.
This is relatively new terminology that has the virtue of not compelling either-or categorization--can someone be "heterosexual" and still have "same sex" feelings? Sure. At some point, it's a problem, and its a different sort of problem at different points. I.e., that a spouse feels something toward his or her same sex doesn't necessarily mean s/he can't give him/herself in marriage. But at some point, it does prevent that, and thus is an impediment. Ask a canon lawyer (I am not one) about the details on this one.
This latter term also has the virtue of not defining people by a facet--even a very significant one--of their personality and sexuality. Unfortunately, it's the longest terminology, and needs more explaining.
But words do matter.
P.S. Fair warning--sometime rather soon, I'm going to get tired of talking about this subject--so get in your comments now!
More on Potential Seminarians who have same-sex desires, aka a homosexual orientation
Some comments to my post below, a mixed message to gay Catholics, seemed worthy of a post.
I want to focus on one question Tim raised in comments there (to read his entire comments, go to that post from Friday, September 23).
Tim said...
"You are right about the need for disinterested friendships and healthy male bonding for men with same sex attraction disorder but the seminary is for the formation of priests not a treatment center for men with SSAD, alcoholism, or any other serious problem. '[T]his should be that place." No our parihes should be that place, The Knights of Columbus should be that place, our Catholic social groups should be that place. '[I]f the seminary is made up of otherwise healthy well adjusted men it would be a very healthy environment for a homosexual male...' My question then is how many healthy well adjusted men per homosexual candidate? Ten to one? One to one? Surely you would not want more homosexuals than straight men. So whats your quota? What do you tell the men with SSAD who don"t get in after you have the safe number. 'sorry fellas we have reached our quota of "Gays" try the next diocese over or just head to LA, Albany, or Rochester. Mahony, Hubbard and Clark never listen to the Pope anyway."
Well, let's unpack this question.
First of all, my original point presupposed that everyone admitted to the seminary is carefully examined, both for commitment to celibate chastity, including a track record, as well as all the other things you look for in potential seminarians.
I presupposed it, not because I'm so naive as to assume it always happens, but to make the point that it MUST happen. And the comments I made were intended only for that context. If there's any validity to having same-sex-attracted men in the seminary, it totally hinges on that.
Now, Tim and others (if I understand Tim correctly) doubt the gatekeepers and formators are being as careful as they ought to be. Understood; and while such negligence is an important question, and obviously related, it is, still, a separate question.
Because if they are as negligent as some insist, I fail to see how helpful a new instruction from Rome will be, if it is simply added to the dusty pile of ignored instructions.
Likewise, even if the formators and gatekeepers do their jobs, I take Tim's concerns with my views to mean that that is still not enough. A further step is needed, to exclude men with a same-sex orientation from the get-go. (And if that's not Tim's position, we may not actually disagree in substance, but perhaps misunderstand each other.)
Second, if Tim thinks I'm advocating seminaries as places of "therapy" or "treatment" for disordered guys, I am sorry my original post was insufficiently clear on this point, and I am happy to clarify it.
No one should be admitted to the seminary who doesn't have his act together, including in relation to his own sexuality. So Tim and I agree, the seminary isn't a place of "therapy" for people who aren't committed to chastity.
So when I said, "this should be that place," I wasn't saying seminaries are places to "fix" guys who aren't chaste, but it should be the place where chaste guys are reinforced in their chastity. Big difference. (Please remember, I was addressing the supposition that an all-male seminary is a near occasion of sin for same-sex-oriented men.)
And my point was, if they happen to have homosexual feelings, a seminary of guys properly screened, properly formed, is a healthy, chastity-affirming setting, not a "seething cauldron of pent-up testosterone" to use Father Jim Tucker's colorful phrase.
So to Tim's question--what should the ratio of homosexual to heterosexual be?
Well, I don't know, and other than those who say "zero," I don't know who knows. And--by the way--if Rome doesn't take the "zero" position, then I have no idea how Rome would answer Tim's question, either.
This may not be a satisfactory answer, but--I'd say with the proper admissions and formation scrutiny, and recruitment, I don't think this becomes an issue.
All I can cite is my own experience. When in the seminary, I had no idea of who might be same-sex-oriented, although I figured there had to be some, so naturally I might wonder about this or that guy. But it's not like I had anything obvious; there were no flamers. Here's a guy who likes opera and show tunes--only he was a widower, married 20 years. Here's a guy who had an odd mannerism (nothing flagrant); only he talked about the girls he went out with in college. Could have been lying. How can I know?
I hinted, but didn't say directly, what I think about a possible policy completely forbidding same-sex-attracted seminarians. I do have reservations about such a policy, in part because I'm having a hard time seeing how it would be articulated, enforced, and how effective that would be--including the inevitable incentives created and unintended consequences. I think the practical difficulties of actually framing such a policy may explain why it's still "in the works." Making it concrete is not easy to do.
Even assuming the strictest possible likely policy, I honestly don't know if I will think that a good or bad idea. I can see arguments both ways, and reservations both ways.
And after all, it all depends on what, if anything, actually emerges. I am not so bright that the reservations I can come up with won't have occurred to the folks in Rome, too.
Finally, if anything emerges, it may end up being more or less what I tend to favor: not total exclusion of same-sex-oriented men, but close scrutiny and a high standard for commitment to celibate chastity.
If anyone is concerned that I'm going to undermine the authority and unity of Mother Church over a policy disagreement, I can assure you that's not my style.
If I may, I publicly swore an oath of fidelity to the Church, and all her teachings, even those not infallibly defined, on two occasions: first, prior to being ordained a deacon, and second, upon my installation as a pastor. In addition, I made a solemn promise at both ordinations, to obey my ordinary, and I renew that every year. Anyone who cares to say I have failed in any of those oaths is welcome to say so; otherwise, I think I'm entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
I want to focus on one question Tim raised in comments there (to read his entire comments, go to that post from Friday, September 23).
Tim said...
"You are right about the need for disinterested friendships and healthy male bonding for men with same sex attraction disorder but the seminary is for the formation of priests not a treatment center for men with SSAD, alcoholism, or any other serious problem. '[T]his should be that place." No our parihes should be that place, The Knights of Columbus should be that place, our Catholic social groups should be that place. '[I]f the seminary is made up of otherwise healthy well adjusted men it would be a very healthy environment for a homosexual male...' My question then is how many healthy well adjusted men per homosexual candidate? Ten to one? One to one? Surely you would not want more homosexuals than straight men. So whats your quota? What do you tell the men with SSAD who don"t get in after you have the safe number. 'sorry fellas we have reached our quota of "Gays" try the next diocese over or just head to LA, Albany, or Rochester. Mahony, Hubbard and Clark never listen to the Pope anyway."
Well, let's unpack this question.
First of all, my original point presupposed that everyone admitted to the seminary is carefully examined, both for commitment to celibate chastity, including a track record, as well as all the other things you look for in potential seminarians.
I presupposed it, not because I'm so naive as to assume it always happens, but to make the point that it MUST happen. And the comments I made were intended only for that context. If there's any validity to having same-sex-attracted men in the seminary, it totally hinges on that.
Now, Tim and others (if I understand Tim correctly) doubt the gatekeepers and formators are being as careful as they ought to be. Understood; and while such negligence is an important question, and obviously related, it is, still, a separate question.
Because if they are as negligent as some insist, I fail to see how helpful a new instruction from Rome will be, if it is simply added to the dusty pile of ignored instructions.
Likewise, even if the formators and gatekeepers do their jobs, I take Tim's concerns with my views to mean that that is still not enough. A further step is needed, to exclude men with a same-sex orientation from the get-go. (And if that's not Tim's position, we may not actually disagree in substance, but perhaps misunderstand each other.)
Second, if Tim thinks I'm advocating seminaries as places of "therapy" or "treatment" for disordered guys, I am sorry my original post was insufficiently clear on this point, and I am happy to clarify it.
No one should be admitted to the seminary who doesn't have his act together, including in relation to his own sexuality. So Tim and I agree, the seminary isn't a place of "therapy" for people who aren't committed to chastity.
So when I said, "this should be that place," I wasn't saying seminaries are places to "fix" guys who aren't chaste, but it should be the place where chaste guys are reinforced in their chastity. Big difference. (Please remember, I was addressing the supposition that an all-male seminary is a near occasion of sin for same-sex-oriented men.)
And my point was, if they happen to have homosexual feelings, a seminary of guys properly screened, properly formed, is a healthy, chastity-affirming setting, not a "seething cauldron of pent-up testosterone" to use Father Jim Tucker's colorful phrase.
So to Tim's question--what should the ratio of homosexual to heterosexual be?
Well, I don't know, and other than those who say "zero," I don't know who knows. And--by the way--if Rome doesn't take the "zero" position, then I have no idea how Rome would answer Tim's question, either.
This may not be a satisfactory answer, but--I'd say with the proper admissions and formation scrutiny, and recruitment, I don't think this becomes an issue.
All I can cite is my own experience. When in the seminary, I had no idea of who might be same-sex-oriented, although I figured there had to be some, so naturally I might wonder about this or that guy. But it's not like I had anything obvious; there were no flamers. Here's a guy who likes opera and show tunes--only he was a widower, married 20 years. Here's a guy who had an odd mannerism (nothing flagrant); only he talked about the girls he went out with in college. Could have been lying. How can I know?
I hinted, but didn't say directly, what I think about a possible policy completely forbidding same-sex-attracted seminarians. I do have reservations about such a policy, in part because I'm having a hard time seeing how it would be articulated, enforced, and how effective that would be--including the inevitable incentives created and unintended consequences. I think the practical difficulties of actually framing such a policy may explain why it's still "in the works." Making it concrete is not easy to do.
Even assuming the strictest possible likely policy, I honestly don't know if I will think that a good or bad idea. I can see arguments both ways, and reservations both ways.
And after all, it all depends on what, if anything, actually emerges. I am not so bright that the reservations I can come up with won't have occurred to the folks in Rome, too.
Finally, if anything emerges, it may end up being more or less what I tend to favor: not total exclusion of same-sex-oriented men, but close scrutiny and a high standard for commitment to celibate chastity.
If anyone is concerned that I'm going to undermine the authority and unity of Mother Church over a policy disagreement, I can assure you that's not my style.
If I may, I publicly swore an oath of fidelity to the Church, and all her teachings, even those not infallibly defined, on two occasions: first, prior to being ordained a deacon, and second, upon my installation as a pastor. In addition, I made a solemn promise at both ordinations, to obey my ordinary, and I renew that every year. Anyone who cares to say I have failed in any of those oaths is welcome to say so; otherwise, I think I'm entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Monday, September 26, 2005
Darwin Catholic, & Mrs. Darwin, are not gay seminarians
Mr. & Mrs. Darwin pay me the courtesy of visiting my site, leaving comments and even linked to one of my posts!
So how could I have been so remiss in failing to add them to my blogroll?
So how could I have been so remiss in failing to add them to my blogroll?
Will the Next High Court Nominee be a... Gay Catholic?
Just kidding about the headline; I guess I'll do anything to get readership!
But seriously, there are all kinds of rumors about who President Bush will choose for the Justice O'Connor's seat -- and a nomination is probably likely very soon.
Like the multi-headed hydra, prospect of a Justice Alberto Gonzales is the beast that will not die, but keeps rising up no matter how many times one lops off a head.
The tide of angst is rising like a storm surge at Confirm Them, where Marshall Manson writes, "with the President’s supporters already on edge over the raft of new federal spending, I fear an open revolt if he selects the Attorney General to serve on the Supreme Court."
I, on the other hand, do not "fear it"--I welcome it!
Recall the words of perhaps our greatest president, Thomas Jefferson:
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing,
and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.... It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of the government." (Letter to James Madison.)
But seriously, there are all kinds of rumors about who President Bush will choose for the Justice O'Connor's seat -- and a nomination is probably likely very soon.
Like the multi-headed hydra, prospect of a Justice Alberto Gonzales is the beast that will not die, but keeps rising up no matter how many times one lops off a head.
The tide of angst is rising like a storm surge at Confirm Them, where Marshall Manson writes, "with the President’s supporters already on edge over the raft of new federal spending, I fear an open revolt if he selects the Attorney General to serve on the Supreme Court."
I, on the other hand, do not "fear it"--I welcome it!
Recall the words of perhaps our greatest president, Thomas Jefferson:
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing,
and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.... It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of the government." (Letter to James Madison.)
Don Jim's Seething Cauldrons of 'Gay Catholics' draws 'em in
I didn't expect it, but I really hit the jackpot, as far as readership, when I posted the item below with the words "gay Catholics."
It did help that Don Jim Tucker at Dappled Things gave me a plug, in his characteristically colorful turn of phrase, referencing "seething cauldrons of pent-up testosterone."
Oh, and while I'm on the subject, if he gets to be "Don Jim," can I be "Don Martin"? It sounds kind of cool.
Auf Deutsche?
Sometimes "blogger" does odd things; currently, it is speaking German to me instead of English as it ought. The relevant setting shows "English (U.S)," so it doesn't appear even to know it spreche Deutsche.
Perhaps it's charismatic...
I assume when you post a message, you see the same thing? Or am I having a Twilight Zone moment?
Perhaps it's charismatic...
I assume when you post a message, you see the same thing? Or am I having a Twilight Zone moment?
Are Prolifers to blame?
Manuel Miranda, the former aide to Senate Minority (oops--Majority; sometimes I can't tell) Leader Bill Frist, has been writing interesting things about the nomination process for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Today, he has a column in the Wall Street Journal: "Roe Row: Pro-lifers largely stayed out of the Roberts fight. That was a mistake. " (Click on headline above to go there.)
It is not true that prolifers were silent, though perhaps they could be louder.
The National Pro Life Alliance (in the interest of full disclosure, I am affiliated with it) has consistently called on the President only to name prolife nominees, in its newsletter and mailings to its nearly half-million members.
Never heard it? Well, NPLA is small, but growing; and while expensive PR may eventually get the Washington Post, NYT and the rest of the chattering class talking, that seems like a very expensive, long, roundabout trip to the people who matter: prolife VOTERS, who in turn have greatest influence on Senators.
So NPLA isn't doing PR, which is why we didn't call Mr. Miranda. Rather, NPLA is contacting its own members and generating letters, petitions and postcards, directed to the Senate and White House.
If Mr. Miranda didn't find out on his own, perhaps he's talking to the wrong people; if he didn't hear about it, maybe he's listening in the wrong places.
Is it working? Hard to say, until we can get candid interviews with folks in the White House; but I feel confident prolifers writing postcards to the White House had a positive influence.
Unfortunately, some prolife organizations have, since 2000, told everyone far and wide that President Bush was our hero, could do no wrong, was utterly trustworthy just because he's our friend--which is certainly kind of them, but can only put a damper on the very sort of grass roots pressure Mr. Miranda says is needed.
Since the battle at question is in the White House--who will the President choose?--then this sort of talk translates into, "the battle is won already." That sort of talk doesn't bring your troops out to the battlefield. Surprise, surprise.
Further, just how much leverage can we have on the White House? The President isn't up for re-election. We can have more on the Senators. And it is worth noting how several of the Senators on the Judiciary Committee highlighted the prolife issue in the hearings.
But just how much heat do you suppose must be created before a GOP Senator will openly oppose a GOP President's nominee? That Brownback and Coburn are showing signs of impatience is a testimony, not to prolife passivity, but impatience from prolife grass roots.
Update: In fairness to Mr. Miranda, I should say more: I think what he writes is largely true in this regard: certainly the White House has been trying to tame prolifers, and keep them singing the White House-written chorus; and I have no doubt many prolifers of prominence went along with this.
I'm proud to say the NPLA doesn't play that game. The NPLA takes its marching orders from conscience and from its members, not politicians.
Today, he has a column in the Wall Street Journal: "Roe Row: Pro-lifers largely stayed out of the Roberts fight. That was a mistake. " (Click on headline above to go there.)
It is not true that prolifers were silent, though perhaps they could be louder.
The National Pro Life Alliance (in the interest of full disclosure, I am affiliated with it) has consistently called on the President only to name prolife nominees, in its newsletter and mailings to its nearly half-million members.
Never heard it? Well, NPLA is small, but growing; and while expensive PR may eventually get the Washington Post, NYT and the rest of the chattering class talking, that seems like a very expensive, long, roundabout trip to the people who matter: prolife VOTERS, who in turn have greatest influence on Senators.
So NPLA isn't doing PR, which is why we didn't call Mr. Miranda. Rather, NPLA is contacting its own members and generating letters, petitions and postcards, directed to the Senate and White House.
If Mr. Miranda didn't find out on his own, perhaps he's talking to the wrong people; if he didn't hear about it, maybe he's listening in the wrong places.
Is it working? Hard to say, until we can get candid interviews with folks in the White House; but I feel confident prolifers writing postcards to the White House had a positive influence.
Unfortunately, some prolife organizations have, since 2000, told everyone far and wide that President Bush was our hero, could do no wrong, was utterly trustworthy just because he's our friend--which is certainly kind of them, but can only put a damper on the very sort of grass roots pressure Mr. Miranda says is needed.
Since the battle at question is in the White House--who will the President choose?--then this sort of talk translates into, "the battle is won already." That sort of talk doesn't bring your troops out to the battlefield. Surprise, surprise.
Further, just how much leverage can we have on the White House? The President isn't up for re-election. We can have more on the Senators. And it is worth noting how several of the Senators on the Judiciary Committee highlighted the prolife issue in the hearings.
But just how much heat do you suppose must be created before a GOP Senator will openly oppose a GOP President's nominee? That Brownback and Coburn are showing signs of impatience is a testimony, not to prolife passivity, but impatience from prolife grass roots.
Update: In fairness to Mr. Miranda, I should say more: I think what he writes is largely true in this regard: certainly the White House has been trying to tame prolifers, and keep them singing the White House-written chorus; and I have no doubt many prolifers of prominence went along with this.
I'm proud to say the NPLA doesn't play that game. The NPLA takes its marching orders from conscience and from its members, not politicians.
Saturday, September 24, 2005
I'm just thankful I didn't get labeled a Republican!
| You are a Social Moderate (50% permissive) and an... Economic Conservative (71% permissive) You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid |
2,000 Visits!
Today, this blog achieved 2,000 visits. That may not seem like much to crow about, but I make just a few posts a week, and do almost nothing to promote this, yet I am fascinated by the number of visits I get.
Thanks to all who visit my page; always feel free to leave a comment, whether you agree or disagree.
Thanks to all who visit my page; always feel free to leave a comment, whether you agree or disagree.
Friday, September 23, 2005
A mixed message to gay Catholics
We've all heard talk about barring men from admission to holy orders, purely on the basis of their sexual orientation. Many believe this an essential step and are cheered by reports that the Holy Father has signed off on such an instruction.But Tom Toles, above--who often offends me--illustrates one of the problems of such a policy. (I shouldn't have to say this, but--I fully support the Church's teaching on what marriage is, who may marry, and on what chastity is for people in various states of life.)
One of the arguments often used for this is that somehow, a seminary must be a terrible temptation for a homosexually oriented man. Having spent six years in a seminary, I find this a little silly.
First, keep in mind that if the diocese, or order, is doing its job, it carefully scrutinizes candidates before entering, to determine their readiness for celibate chastity. We all hear horror stories, and should be skeptical, but I suppose they happen. In my case, studying for the Archdiocese of Cincinnati (which hardly has a reputation for being especially conservative), we are grilled about our past: dating, sexual history, etc. It's confidential; but very probing.
So if the admissions folks do their job, the homosexual men entering the seminary are going to have a track record of celibate chastity; they won't be--as someone from Catholics United for the Faith glibly put it--like an alcoholic in a bar. It will be more like a teetotaler in a bar. What's the problem?
Second, while I don't doubt guys in a seminary might well be able to pull off romances and liaisons, having lived in a seminary, I think it would be very hard to do and keep it secret. It's like the smallest small town you can imagine; everybody knows everybody else's business. If guys are AWOL a lot, either by themselves or with someone else, everyone will know it, including the faculty, many of whom live there (the priests, of course).
Third, people seem not to give much credence to what the Church actually recommends as a necessary tool for homosexual persons to succeed in chastity: close, trusting, disinterested friendship. This is what the Catechism says, and what Courage, the completely orthodox, pro-chastity, Catholic apostolate for same-sex-attracted persons, says.
And one of the great aspects of the seminary is the brotherhood men form in pursuit of the priesthood. You have every opportunity to form solid, trusting, life-giving friendships. And such friendships are key for all men, particularly in being morally accountable; who thinks they wouldn't be a great boon to same-sex-attracted men who are serious about chastity? If ever there were a place where a homosexual man might find a heterosexual man with the maturity, moral depth, spirituality and Christian charity to be a real friend, this should be that place.
The seminary is no place for anyone, heterosexual or homosexual--who is too immature to deal with such questions. And obviously, there are both appropriate and inappropriate ways to disclose such things. My point is that, contrary to the idea that the all-male environment is a snare for a homosexually oriented man; I am arguing that, if the seminary is made up of otherwise healthy, well-adjusted men, it would a very healthy environment for a homosexual male--who is demonstrably committed to celibate chastity--to succeed in that endeavor.
Finally, the "he's around guys all day, so it'll be too tempting" cuts both ways. After ordination, guess who a priest is more likely to be around all day? Not men, but women. Like it or not, the vast majority of those employed in, and active as volunteers, in a parish, are women. If "guys all day" is a grievous temptation for homosexuals, what is "gals all day" for a heterosexual? A priest-to-be spends at most 8 years in the seminary; he'll spend decades in a parish setting.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Katrina, now Rita
It seems incredible that after Katrina, we now face--only three weeks later--Rita.
Wednesday, I led the congregation in prayers for averting the hurricane; I offered Mass today for averting the storm; and tomorrow, I'll lead the children in prayers to avert the storm as well.
We all hope it doesn't happen. But why do we suppose it shouldn't?
Wednesday, I led the congregation in prayers for averting the hurricane; I offered Mass today for averting the storm; and tomorrow, I'll lead the children in prayers to avert the storm as well.
We all hope it doesn't happen. But why do we suppose it shouldn't?
Republicans are liars!
If you surf the blogosphere--at least, the right wing of it--you'll see a swelling discussion of excessive spending by the GOP Congress; and you'll see expressions of hope that the GOP will do something about metastasizing government.
In these years of GOP ascendancy, spending has spiked and the government has grown like "the Blob" in the 1950s movie. President Bill Clinton said, "the era of big government is over." President Bush and the GOP Congress feel otherwise.
So, shall we now hope that something has changed?
We shall see.
But keep this interpretative key handy at all times: they are liars!
Now, I know: "aren't the Democrats liars too?" Well, yes.
But the GOP is worse.
The Democratic Party isn't lying when it advocates big government--and Democrats do advocate it, very openly. Democrats aren't liars when they demand abortion-on-demand, and demand you pay for it. They aren't liars when they demand higher taxes, race quotas, compulsory unionism, government hostility to religion, and so forth.
The Democrats are essentially honest about their advocacy of these things. Call them whatever names you like--but they aren't liars.
On the other hand, the GOP says: we love smaller government; we will end government subsidies; we will overturn Roe v. Wade; we will end racial quotas, we will repeal gun control, we will support Right to Work, we will cut spending, eliminate government programs and shut down bureaucracies.
All lies. The GOP is the Liar Party.
No, they're not all liars. That's the tragedy. Some in office do care, they share our outrage over this utter dishonesty. And I don't mean to be unfair to them.
But I believe the only thing that will induce the GOP to some measure of honesty is imminent threat of disaster--if you will forgive me, a political Katrina bearing down on them.
And that will only happen when the right-wingers the GOP considers in their pocket really rebel. As long as conservatives keep going back to their abusive spouse for more of the same, nothing will change.
In these years of GOP ascendancy, spending has spiked and the government has grown like "the Blob" in the 1950s movie. President Bill Clinton said, "the era of big government is over." President Bush and the GOP Congress feel otherwise.
So, shall we now hope that something has changed?
We shall see.
But keep this interpretative key handy at all times: they are liars!
Now, I know: "aren't the Democrats liars too?" Well, yes.
But the GOP is worse.
The Democratic Party isn't lying when it advocates big government--and Democrats do advocate it, very openly. Democrats aren't liars when they demand abortion-on-demand, and demand you pay for it. They aren't liars when they demand higher taxes, race quotas, compulsory unionism, government hostility to religion, and so forth.
The Democrats are essentially honest about their advocacy of these things. Call them whatever names you like--but they aren't liars.
On the other hand, the GOP says: we love smaller government; we will end government subsidies; we will overturn Roe v. Wade; we will end racial quotas, we will repeal gun control, we will support Right to Work, we will cut spending, eliminate government programs and shut down bureaucracies.
All lies. The GOP is the Liar Party.
No, they're not all liars. That's the tragedy. Some in office do care, they share our outrage over this utter dishonesty. And I don't mean to be unfair to them.
But I believe the only thing that will induce the GOP to some measure of honesty is imminent threat of disaster--if you will forgive me, a political Katrina bearing down on them.
And that will only happen when the right-wingers the GOP considers in their pocket really rebel. As long as conservatives keep going back to their abusive spouse for more of the same, nothing will change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)