A View From the Pew

Happy anniversary Papa!

Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum;
habemus Papam:

Eminentissimum ac Reverendissimum Dominum,
Dominum Josephum

Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem Ratzinger
qui sibi nomen imposuit Benedictum XVI

April 19,2005

Reading between the lines

Reading through the latest crop of Op-eds pertaining to the "the document" I am perceiving the growing trend to criticize it as not only scapegoating homosexuals but as ignoring the *real* problem which which more and more they seem to be suggesting is about heterosexual pedophiles.  It is amazing to watch. While most articles do not come out explicitly like this one and say:

But the study doesn't answer one vital question: Were the clergymen who abused adolescent boys gay men?

To the sexually unsophisticated this is a ridiculous question, since men who have sex with boys obviously must be homosexual. However, Roland Summit, a psychiatrist at Harbor-UCLA Medical Center specializing in child sexual abuse since 1975, says the habitual molester of adolescent boys is rarely attracted to adult males, and the vast majority of men who molest boys identify themselves as heterosexual and (aside from Roman Catholic clergy) are in adult heterosexual relationships.

They do seem to be taking that approach implicitly. Interestingly, the author chose Roland Summit as his expert. Google Roland Summit and you will quickly see he is steeped in controversy---definitely not someone I would choose to make a point I wanted to be taken seriously.

Looking at that last sentence which I quoted--- that most men who molest boys identify themselves as heterosexual and are in heterosexual relationships--- is understood more correctly when one looks up the profile of a pedophile as I did here--- and it says:

"Are usually family men, have no criminal record, and deny that they abuse children, even after caught, convicted, incarcerated, and court-ordered into a sex offender program. The marriage is often troubled by sexual dysfunction, and serves as a smokescreen for the pedophile's true preferences and practices."

So it seems that just because a man is married doesn't mean he is a heterosexual. If you think about it logically a man that wanted unfettered access to children would be best served by playing the part of a normal, married, heterosexual man--- I had an aquaintence from a divorce support group about 20 years ago whose husband was charged with molesting her two sons from a previous marriage. She said she began to be suspicous of him when after the wedding he wanted nothing to do with her sexually. Before the wedding he was affectionate and attentive--she said they never had sex because of religious convictions---at the time she found it refreshing--- that it made her feel special and that he really appreciated the sanctity of marriage--- and she was impressed with his kindness towards her boys. A few times after the wedding they attempted sexual relations but it was a failure--- he blamed it on stress and work---she blamed herself--- it wasn't until her oldest began acting rebellious and angry and her youngest refused to stay with her husband when she wasn't home that she began to wonder if something was wrong.

Roland Summit then says "the habitual molester of adolescent boys is rarely attracted to adult males". I don't know if this is just another instance of Roland Summit fabricating results that are favorable to his point of view but I have found  reliable sources that seem to claim otherwise. The most common statistic I see quoted is while only 2% of male adults are homosexual approximately 35% of pedophiles are homosexual*(see footnote below). While it is true that not every, nor even most homosexual men are attracted to boys there is a comparatively large percentage (compared to the percentge of heterosexual men attracted to children, teenagers)that find young boys and especially adolescent boys sexually attractive. It is a well documented component of gay fiction and gay history (what about the Greeks, Romans? What about NAMBLA?). The reason there are so many more heterosexual men is simply a matter of statistics--- they make up 98% of the male population compared to the 2% for homosexuals--- pedophilia/ephebophilia is more common to homosexuals when compared by percentage of each population as opposed to number of offenders in each group. Also many of the priest offenders self identified themselves as homosexual and several of the high profile cases were on record as having been involved with adult men as well. Perhaps the most notable was Paul Shanley. According to the New York Times from April 15, 2002---

"What his superiors appeared not to know, however, was that the address to which they were sending Father Shanley's checks for most of his time here was the Cabana Club Resort, one of the many hotels that cater to the town's gays. Father Shanley became an owner of the hotel, along with the Rev. John J. White, another Boston priest who was also on sick leave and receiving money from the Boston Archdiocese. Father White was the sole owner of a second hotel, the nearby Whispering Palms.

Neither remains in business, although the scene they were part of is thriving, with 40 such hotels and bed-and-breakfasts, mostly in the Warm Sands enclave. These clothing-optional places, protected from prying eyes by walls and towering bougainvillea, do year-round business for gay men from around the world."

Paul Shanley had been long active in the gay rights movement and got himself a lot of attention and trouble by publically supporting NAMBLA. Then there was the Saint Sebastian's Angels website where homosexual priests bragged not only about relations with other men but with boys as well--- some even suggesting resorts that catered to gay men looking for boys to "party" with.

What these people hope is that if they keep up with the well worn mantras of "more heterosexual than homosexual men molest children" and "pedophilia, not homosexuality is the problem"--- that we will be lulled into acceptance without looking at the details behind their mantras. They say by targeting gays the church will let the *real* abusers continue to abuse  (note the implication)--- They say they are worried--- concerned---and I believe this is true---but not for the safety of children as they claim--- I think they are afraid to see the results of the enforcement of the instruction--- what will they say when the assault of teenage boys dramatically drops--- or when we see statistics that are very different in areas where the bishops enforce the instruction as opposed to areas where they don't? I think what they really fear is finding out that there certainly is a link between the disproportionate number of homosexual clergy and the disproportionate number of Catholic boys and teens who were among the victims of clergy abuse.

The mounting number of shrill voices demanding that the Church stop scapgoating gays and deal with the *real* abusers is in indication that gay activists are not used to not being in control--- They cannot manipulate what comes out of the Vatican as they do every secular institution--- they cannot control how the Catholic Church will deal with its problems--- so they are frantic---what if they are proven wrong? Yup---I'd agree--- indeed they are very concerned about the issue....

*(1 K. and R. I. Watson, The Proportions of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 18 (Spring 1992): 3443.) (2. K. Freund et al., Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality, Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 10 (Fall 1984): 197.)

Interpreter please!

St Joan's new pastor gave his first homily--- It is here. I have read it a couple of times and have yet to figure out exactly what Fr. Jim was trying to say---especially the last paragraph which says:

"So, if you don’t get it, and if St. Joan’s don’t get it, we are on trouble. You are the messenger, you have the power and only you can bring the message as it is given to you. But it takes effort. Part of why we belong to a greater Church is that sometimes we are wrong and it’s good to be challenged. Something which you are used to; being challenged, that is, not being wrong. I guess. I suppose. At least that is what everyone here maintains."

Anyone care to give their interpretation? I have to admit I'm left scratching my head.

Not so much...

Catholics call church document confusing 

Not really---  It is only confusing for those who are trying to find a way to navigate through the language and continue to support moral ideology contrary to the teaching of the Church. If you understand the consistant Catholic teaching on homosexuality, if you can look at recent church history and current cultural situations with an discerning eye--- and perhaps most importantly with an attitude of obedience--- it really isn't confusing at all. The only uncertainty I feel is whether or not the majority of bishops and rectors in this country will have the wisdom and courage to follow through with the instruction.

The article quotes Rev. Tom Reese as an "expert" on the structure of the church, as saying ---- "Who uses a phrase like 'homosexual tendencies' except a document like this? And what does it mean?" In response to Fr. Reese's question I went to Merriam-Webster Online and found this definition for 'tendency'--- b : a proneness to a particular kind of thought or action--- further on in the definition it also says 'tendency'--- "implies an inclination sometimes amounting to an impelling force". So then using the simple and universal gifts of human reason and intellect which God has given me and every other human being I would tell Fr. Reese that 'homosexual tendencies' would mean being prone and/or impelled to think about and act on homosexual inclinations. Amazingly I figured that out without the benefit of advanced degrees! The trouble Fr. Reese is having is in trying to find a nuance, in what is rather clear language, through which he can support a moral position which is contrary to Church teaching--- he cannot find what he desires to find and so he ends up 'confused'---which Merriam-Webster defines as--- a : to make indistinct" which puts him in a state found in definition-b : to (be) disturb(ed) in mind or purpose." The problem Fr. Reese (and other antagonists) has is not with the language chosen by the writer of the document but rather with his own attempt to interpret it from a position outside of the moral framework with which it was written.

The Rev. Steven Boguslawski, rector of Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, seems to suffer from the same problem which is indicated by his comment that "the document is so complex that church officials need time to study it. An important document always requires careful study" My guess is that what the Reverend means is that he needs more time to look for a possible loophole in the otherwise clear instruction so that he can find a way to continue business as usual without appearing to be dissenting from the instruction.

Tom Nelson, described as a lifelong Catholic is quoted as saying that he finds that "kind of implication particularly offensive. It implies that my gay son and all other gay people are likely child abusers. That's nonsense." His statement in response to the concern the church has that the findings of the independent study conducted by John Jay College seem to indicate the major issue was not with priests abusing children but rather the majority of complaints involved homosexual acts with postpubescent boys and with young men. Mr Nelson has a deep and understandable (albeit misguided) desire see no correlation between the 80%+ victims of priestly sexual misconduct and the disproportionate number of gay men in the priesthood. Fortunately for the rest of us the church is able to see things more objectively.

Mr Nelson continues "And they're also saying in this statement that it's somehow harder for homosexuals to be chaste than it is for heterosexuals. And that's just not true, either. It's offensive to hear my church say this, especially when there's no research showing any of this." Whether or not homosexuals are less capable then heterosexuals of remaining chaste is not the issue. The issue is a matter of placing homosexual men in an enviroment that would predispose them to failure through ever present temptation. Would Mr. Nelson, Fr. Reese (who echos Mr. Nelson's criticism) consider it prudent to put a heterosexual male bound to a vow of celibacy in a living situation where he is surrounded by women (heterosexual women) day and night--- working, living, socializing and confiding almost exclusively with them. I doubt any intelligent or reasonable person would say that that is a good idea. The truth is that given the nature of the priesthood heterosexual men are not subject to the same level of temptation that a homosexual man would be. That is not as much a reflection of the homosexual person's integrity as it is an acknowledgement of the nature of priestly life. While it is true that a heterosexual man, through God's grace, could possibly withstand the temptation presented to him by living in a house full of women would it be fair or just to impose such morally taxing circumstances on him? I would not find that a just situation at all ---- and if it would not be prudent or just in that circumstance why would we consider it prudentand just in the circumstance of those who are attracted to men rather then women?

Timing is everything

Today I was thinking about the timing of the release of "the document". Advent according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, marks the beginning of a new year in the Western churches. It is also a time when the faithful are admonished---

• to prepare themselves worthily to celebrate the anniversary of the Lord's coming into the world as the incarnate God of love,

• thus to make their souls fitting abodes for the Redeemer coming in Holy Communion and through grace, and
• thereby to make themselves ready for His final coming as judge, at death and at the end of the world

I believe in Divine Providence not in coincidences--- This document is filled with the expectation of renewal---first and foremost in the priesthood and also from there to the laity. In reading and listening to all those talking I would say that the "sensus fidelium" the "sense" of those who are faithful (as opposed to the "voice of the dissident") --- is that this is a very good thing---this is a  moment pregnant with grace--- if we have the courage as a church to accept it---- This message is somewhat troubling even to those of us who see it as a good thing. I find myself pondering--- much like Our Lady did two thousand years ago---what does it really mean? How will it effect us---how will our life as a church be changed? There is a pious story I heard a long time ago that said that after the angel Gabriel delivered God's message to Mary there was a moment of complete silence over the entire earth--- that every creature at that moment held its breath waiting for her reply---That is sort of the way it feels right now--- like everyone is waiting--- the entire world watching--- holding their collective breath--- just waiting to see the church's response. Our Lady is the image and model of the Church and so her fiat must be ours as well--- in this moment of expectation---with the same absolute confidence in God's Word and in the face of rejection and scorn--- we as a Church need to respond as she did ---- "be it done unto to me according to your word"

Look who is talking

Anglican bishop criticizes Vatican over gays

"This strikes me as language from people who profoundly do not understand gay and lesbian people ... who know next to nothing about being gay or lesbian," Robinson, whose ordination as bishop in 2003 plunged the Anglican Church into crisis.

Actually I beg to differ with Bishop V. Gene Robinson--- I believe it shows a profound UNDERSTANDING--- and that is what has the Right Reverend and the others all a twitter. Advocate's "2003 Person of the Year" chides the Vatican about their "insensitivity" and warns them of the potentially devastating effect this will have on the Roman Catholic Church.

Yeah--- that's right it could could lead to disunity, confusion, anger---- Wait a minute--- that sounds an awful lot like the Episcopalian Church since the Right Reverend was elevated to his post--- Hmmmm--- so if he has the "right" understanding why is his church crumbling before his eyes--- if tolerance and inclusiveness of the homosexual lifestyle is "good" for the church---why, recently and publically, is his church  conceding to the fact that the world wide Anglican communion maybe hopelessly split and unable to reconcile itself on this issue?

What a sad, lost man--- I mean that--- it really is sad. He seems to have lost his shepherd's humility behind a mountain of gay pride--- a mountain that has become so obstructive he cannot see beyond it. In his dark part of the universe apparently there is no longer enough light left for him to see how absurd and hypocritical his criticism of the Roman Catholic Church is.

The chicken littles are pulling ahead...

It seems the most prevalent voice in the media are those who see nothing but doom and gloom ahead for the Church because of "the document". Just about every piece I have read today is predicting terrible consequences--- Yes--- the Church is about to hemorrhage losing even more priests. This article from the New York Times has this quote from Rev. James Bretzke, chairman of theology and religious studies at University of San Francisco:

"Unless you get a critical mass of bishops and religious superiors who say, Now we can't admit any gay men, I don't think it's going to have any discernible effect," Father Bretzke said. "There are lots of excellent gay priests and seminarians, and we have a priest shortage. We're not exactly in a buyer's market here. If you're not going to ordain gay men, and not going to ordain married men, and not going to ordain women, well then who's left? It's not exactly a big pool."

Fr. Bretzke implies that there are so few interested heterosexual men that the consequences of bishops following the instruction would mean that there will be no one to choose from. I have two responses to this "sky is falling" approach. The first is HOGWASH! I happen to believe that younger people today--- especially young Catholics are more conservative--- I have been very impressed with many of the newly ordained priests I have met--- they are not only very orthodox and obedient they are on fire with the Holy Spirit--- I cannot help but believe that fostering a more orthodox and masculine priesthood will draw many men who were put off by the "gayness" of some seminaries and religious orders.

My second response is while I do not see a massive hemorrhage I do see a "winnowing" and I say bring it on. Back in 1969, then Fr. Joseph Ratzinger made this prediction in a radio broadcast---

"From today's crisis, a Church will emerge tomorrow that will have lost a great deal. She will be small and, to a large extent, will have to start from the beginning. She will no longer be able to fill many of the buildings created in her period of great splendour. Because of the smaller number of her followers, she will lose many of her privileges in society."

I am not worried--- it is what we need--- let's jettison what is weighing us down--- all those institutions that use the Catholic name--- universities, associations, healthcare facilities and parishes--- but obstinately refuse to be obedient to the truth--- give them the chance to repent and reform and if they don't ---cut the apron strings--- the fruits of a smaller, poorer and humbled Church will be tremendous. What I am grateful for today is that it seems we have a Holy Father who understands this and will not be deterred by the cacophony of all the chicken littles who have suddenly realized it is their necks on the chopping block.

It has begun...

... and commentaries are running along fairly predictable lines. Of course the media portrays this as if it were political---referring to "conservative" and "liberal" Catholics rather then Catholics who faithfully adhere to Church teaching and those who dissent.

The opinions of those who dissent run along lines from the " No worries---this is nothing new--- no different from the 1961 directive" (that was never enforced) to the frantic chicken little response which seems to predict the Church will fall apart because gay priests and semanarians will defect in droves. Of course the common thread running though both these points of view is that gays are being scapegoated, are the victims of a "witch hunt" and that ther Church is hopelessly shallow, uninformed and bigoted in its understanding of homosexual people. I can picture them all standing around shaking their heads and clucking their tongues--- looking dutifully ashamed to be members of such a "organization".

There was one article that seemed fairly well balanced in presenting both "sides" of the issue. It is this one--- Catholic Document

Quick---in the trenches!!!!!

Get ready--- here comes the firestorm! Vatican document on homosexuals. I am sure that by morning this will be the topic of every news program, news paper and zillions of blogs--- I have a feeling that Catholic bashing will reach new heights in the days ahead--- I am sure the document will be misunderstood, misrepresented as well as deliberately misconstrued. And most sadly I think we will soon see very ugly demonstrations by gay activists and I fear violence against Catholics--- I do believe today we stand at the threshold of religious persecution in this country---- Maybe I am over reacting--- maybe I am being silly--- but deep down inside I get the feeling I am right on target.

Effects of sin---- A sad example

John Paull II said in RECONCILIATIO ET PAENITENTIA In paragraph 16:

"As a personal act, sin has its first and most important consequences in the sinner himself: that is, in his relationship with God, who is the very foundation of human life; and also in his spirit, weakening his will and clouding his intellect."

The catechism says in paragraph 1865:

"Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root."

And paragraph 1850:

"Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight." Sin sets

itself against God's love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become "like gods," knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God." In this proud self-exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation."

I found this glowing article "Gay theology pioneer trusts 'God's shrewdness" on the National Catholic Reporter website (I am a glutton for punishment aren't I?) It is an article on Jesuit Father John McNeill ---a now "ex" priest who admits to carrying on a homosexual relationship for twenty-three years while supposedly living, albeit hypocritically, as a vowed religious, two areas I found particularly interesting were:

“As I see it,” says McNeill, “the whole trajectory of the church is toward the era of the Spirit, when each will know the truth in his heart and there will be no need for extrinsic authority

He is fascinated with the teaching of Joachim of Flora, a 12th-century visionary who spoke of three periods in Christian history: the era of the Father, that is, the period of the Old Testament; the era of the Son, during which the institutional church was developing; and the coming era of the Holy Spirit. “I think we’re moving into that era,” he said, and he sees the gay community as the vanguard. “By being rejected by church leadership, gays and lesbians have had to ask God directly if they can live authentic Christian lives, and they are getting [positive] answers. They’ve come to see church teaching on homosexuality as destroying their self-image, so they’ve had to take direct access to God, based on prayer, spirituality and freedom of conscience.”

But isn’t direct access the Protestant approach, and doesn’t this era of the Spirit he’s advocating mean the end of Catholicism? “Not at all,” says McNeill. “This is where we see the shrewdness of the Holy Spirit. Members of Dignity and other gay Catholics are not leaving the church. They’re staying. They value the church, the Mass, the sacraments. There will of course be leaders, priests and bishops in the new church. The people will appoint them, and the one duty of leaders will be to listen. You know, it’s already happening all over the world.” He sees the priest shortage as one more example of “God’s shrewdness,” because laity are beginning to name their own leaders, empowering them to do what must be done to preserve the faith.

Any room for the pope? “Of course,” says McNeill. “He will be the principal listener to the people of God -- and to the whole world as well.” But the pattern of paternalism, clericalism and hierarchy will go, he predicts confidently, as people “take their own faith seriously and stop thinking God can speak only through the institutional church.”

Are they serious? NCR sees this as a "Profile in Faith".  Faith in what? It would be easy to poke fun due to the absolute ridiculousness of  John McNeill's comments but it is more sad then funny. His intellect so clouded by sin this "theologian" has rationalized his behavior by proclaiming that there is no longer any need for an institutional Church because in the age of the "spirit" one only needs to pray and use their conscience to know what is right--- Hence ---rather then the Vicar of Christ--- the one who holds the keys--- the one who can bind and loose ---the Supreme Pontiff--- the Pope becomes the "principal listener" of the people of God.  Accordingly then McNeill says it is gays and lesbians who will lead us to God in this new age. In his sin soaked logic he prattles on:

”McNeill is hopeful, almost buoyant about the future. He sees gay marriage as “a new paradigm” that will in time rescue straight marriages from their present dysfunctional status in modern society. “God created male and female as equals,” he notes, “but Western culture has been based on the superiority of the male, the inferiority of the woman, and therefore a fundamental inequality in the relationship.” The male is expected to suppress his female qualities and talents, and the female is expected to suppress her male qualities, he explains, inevitably leading to anger, a disruption of sexual intimacy and often a breakup of the union. Gay unions, on the other hand, are based on the full equality of the couple, says McNeill, leaving the partners free to express their male and female sides. The example of stable gay unions, he predicts, will have a salutary effect on all marriages, gay and heterosexual."

So--- let me get this straight (no pun intended) acceptance of homosexuals marriage will eliminate the "dysfunction" found in heterosexual relationships--- because God apparently, according to McNeill's theology, screwed up when He created us as male and female--- apparently only homosexuals live in full equality with one another--- so there is no "dysfunction" in homosexual unions (hmmm--- interesting---since statistics indicate the risk of being battered by a loved one is greater in homosexual/lesbian relationships--- then in straight relationships--- also the transmission of STD's is astronomically higher among gay men---even in "committed relationships" then in straight couples). And finally---

"He sees legislative efforts to ban gay marriages as a “last gasp” of an outmoded system. Nor does he fear that the priest abuse scandal will raise a determined outcry against gays. “Who knows if abusive priests are gay or heterosexual?” he says. “Abusers are “self-hating, disturbed people” who don’t seek out healthy relationships; they abuse whoever is available. And if the pope issues a letter banning gays from entering seminaries, McNeill is convinced he will accelerate “the era of the Holy Spirit,” in which clergy and laity will more and more look directly to God for answers and dismiss oppressive, extrinsic authority. “Just another sign of God’s shrewdness,” he explains."

Gee--- According to McNeill it almost sounds like gays and lesbians are the saviors of the world. This is what happens when we refuse to be obedient to Christ and to the Church which Christ left us--- this is how sin harms us individually--and also how it harms the unity of the Church--- it wounds Christ's body as well as our souls---