May 3, 2006

Another REC transcript

"Anonymous," our good friend and hard-working, faithful transcriber of talks at Cardinal Mahony's 2006 Religious Education Congress, has sent us the following transcript.

It is of Dr. Greer Gordon's talk, "Homosexuality, Celibacy and the Priesthood: Continuing the Conversation," given Saturday, April 1. Our friend "Anonymous" remarks, "Note how she attempts to portray homosexuality and pedophilia as two separate issues, when in fact the John Jay report stated that more than 80 percent of clerical sexual abuse cases are homosexual in nature. Of course, she never mentions that."
========================================================================>==>>>I I think I would self-describe primarily as a catechist, and I know so>many of us are catechetical personnel here today. I'm also a Catholic>school teacher, having cut my teeth teaching in New Orleans, Louisiana,>many, many years ago; high school, and that's because the sisters whom I>entered, I believe in graduate school, thought I was arrogant and I>needed to learn how to be a teacher, and I'm grateful for their recipe>for my arrogance . . . And the result is that they did in fact make me,>hopefully, a very good teacher.>>>>

The other part of what I would offer as insight at this time is just to>remind all of us that we're Church. So, as we come into these>conversations, as we engage in all manner of speculative thought, and we>begin to put forth ideologies, the fact of the matter is we're Church.>And it appears right now that some of us have forgotten what Church>means.>>>>It means that when we step outside of these walls and anywhere else, we>are probably the closest thing to Jesus Christ anyone else in the modern>world will meet today. And that if we think of ourselves as being part>of a body that is in fact Christ Himself, then perhaps we'll begin to>clean up our thought process and really begin to focus on the matters at>hand.>>>>

There are people dying in Iraq. There are people dying in Afghanistan.>There are people in New Orleans, Louisiana trying to clean out their>homes, thinking that a little bit of bleach is going to get them safely>back in, not realizing that the toxic waste site that is now New Orleans>is nearly irretrievable. And yet we as Church sit, taking apart one>another and taking apart Christ's children, and in the midst of that the>real job and the real task that we ought to be about is going undone>(applause).>>>>

[Referring to those who might disagree with and write about her later]>Those of you who have placards, who have all manner of thought to put>forth next week, tonight or tomorrow morning on the Internet, I spell my>name G-R-double E-R and [my last name is spelled] G-O-R-D-O-N. And I do>that not in arrogance but simply to say to them the process of>fracturing this body and attempting to put it forth that any one>individual has the right to serve in any fashion as a watchdog for Holy>Mother Church, I grant you I don't recall we named any of them Pontiff>(applause).>>>>

And so I say to myself, as well as to the rest of us and to my brothers>who know so very deeply that people are after them, I say to them what I>hear so very often and what is recited to me so frequently by my mentor,>a now-aging abbess in a monastery. She reminds me so very, very often,>"Be not afraid.">>>>

The words of Jesus, the words of the scriptures are consistent in saying>to us, "Be not afraid." And as we come together to talk about this>really problematic situation in the Church, we have to do that in a>spirit of listening to one another, a spirit of prayer, and a spirit of>being about the work of God.>>>>

We have an awful lot of evangelization to do, and I don't know about you>all, but now that it appears that the Lord has allowed me to return from>being in public institutions back into working in Church>institutions-for which I'm just profoundly grateful, I must say-I have>to say to us, "It's time. We have an awful lot of work to do." And we're>going to need every able-bodied individual who can possibly begin to>preach, teach, witness to and be present for Christ in the midst of this>very, very problematic, schizophrenic world. Amen (applause).>>>>

And thus I want to start with three approaches, please. The first is a>reflection on what is so appropriately referred to as "The Instruction,">but really is titled, "Concerning criteria for the discernment of>vocations with regard to persons with homosexual tendencies" and>yada-yada-yada-yada. So I'll just begin by offering some reflections on>the document. The second is to offer some reflections on the document in>relationship to the tradition of the Church, and the third is just some>general reflections I think that are needed at this time to be put>forward.>>>>

The good news is the document wasn't as bad as I expected. Given the>press that was out there and the statements that were made about it, I>expected it to truly be horrific. There are some really very solid and>very sound statements in it, and I would be remiss not to admit that and>not to say that. It is simply that: an instruction. It is an instruction>attempting-and it is, I must say, given how some of the more recent>documents have been written on the subject of homosexuality-it is a very>well-written document. I think the document reflects very well, in my>opinion, the perspectives of the Church. And that's going to frighten>some people, but the fact of the matter is we all get on a big frenzy of>beating up on one another. We have to look seriously at the words being>said, and what shall we do, and what shall we do with this document.>>>>

The bad news of the document is simply the basis upon which it was put>forth. It attempts to find a way to address a problem that we as a>Church have had for a very, very long time, and that is that somehow or>other, across a significant moment in the life of this Church, we have>had individuals slip into our midst who are in fact predators, who prey>upon our children and prey upon the children of others. And that's a>fact. And we've attempted to address, with a document about>homosexuality, a problem called pedophilia.>>>>

Rather than writing an instruction on how to discern, determine, find>and prevent from entering seminaries men who have any tendency toward>abusing children and others, we have written something about>homosexuality. And one more time, each time we have to deal with>pedophilism [sic], we pull out homosexuality, run it up to the gang>pike, and begin to beat it up.>>>>

I actually sat in Boston. Every single morning following some news>article or story that came out about some pedophile individual, we ran a>story the next morning talking about homosexuality and the Church. Our>bishop-now cardinal-spoke about it. We have individuals running around>saying things about homosexuals rather than really saying we need to>talk about pedophiles.>>>>

I went to college with one who's doing 36 years to life in a>penitentiary in Louisiana for rape of children. I had no idea as a>student that the individual had any tendency toward abusing children,>nor did I have any knowledge of how we could deal with those kinds of>issues or how to recognize them. We need to begin to give individuals>some kind of cue, some kind of clue to deal with these people.>>>>

We've not made any effort forward on the question of homosexuality>because of the fact that we really are trying to talk about preventing>pedophilia, pedophiles from entering the Church. We need to come clean>now as a church. We need to write an instruction. We need to tell>catechists how to recognize the fact that there may be others around us>who are abusing our children or have some tendency toward abusing our>children. We need to prepare some type of pamphlet, some kind of insight>that will assist them in feeling that they can speak up and can in fact>have a voice in this Church to say that it's unacceptable to put our>children at risk. It does not benefit us as a church to continue in any>way to guard or bring in people who may in fact be pedophiles.>>>>

I don't know about you, but after having been with that particular>individual, I recognized the fact that I knew there was something>different about him, something odd, something I couldn't put a finger>on. There I was, studying systematic theology at the hands of some of>the most incredible scholars in the world, and no one could tell us that>in our midst was someone who was predatory to young children.>>>>

Thus, it is a problem, and until we get to a point where we can>recognize and see these people, we will continue to have this problem>just absolutely rock us and rock our world. It's not a Roman Catholic>problem. It's not a Christian problem. It's just we're talking about it,>and frankly we're paying for it in a sense with money, and people get>upset about that.>>>>

I don't know about you; I'm not too concerned about the fact that if we>once again have to use beat-up cups on the altar, if it gets us to the>point where we have healthy children and gets us to the point where we>truly become Christ, then maybe the loss of our revenues will finally>get us around to dealing with the fact that we must be the ones to lead>the tide in ridding the world of pedophiles. Amen (applause).>>>>

We do need-and I do say this in all sincerity and a spirit of the most>profound confidentiality-we do need to encourage our bishops, just as>they have placed exorcists in our dioceses-I do sincerely believe that>our bishops should appoint one priest to be the one who is the>individual who asks all the pedophiles, "Who did you rape?" We need a>list of names. We need a list of families and parishes. And then we need>to begin a systematic process of contacting those individuals out of a>spirit of Christ's love to see to their healing.>>>>

Two things will occur from that. One is that we will own the fact that>we have a moral obligation and responsibility to attend to anyone who>has been raped by any person connected with the Roman Catholic Church in>the world, and not just in America. This is not an American issue. It is>a Church issue. And as we deal with this issue, when we ask, "Who is it>that you raped?" we are also looking for other pedophiles, because>people who are abused go in one of two directions. If they are>untreated, they either become abusers or they become lifelong victims.>>>>

The lifelong victim will continue to be victimized by anyone and>everyone and come all takers. And the abusers will be the ones>victimizing those who have already been victims, even though they might>have been their peesr. And thus we do need to engage in a sincere>process of ridding ourselves of this situation.>>>>

Now, it is true that we have an instruction that states up front what>everyone in the Vatican is thinking about regarding homosexuality and>homosexual candidates for the priesthood. It's really very>interesting-and I found myself just profoundly overwhelmed in hearing .>. . some of the interpretations that are coming from individuals in>Rome. What's frightening about it is the fact that we would have us,>once again, beat up on people who are simply, out of a profound sense of>the love of Christ, working to serve the Church, the Gospel, and the>people of God.>>>>

Perhaps the Instruction needs to be much more explicit. I don't know>about you, but I don't really know what a "gay lifestyle" is. . .>Rather than using euphemistic speech, we have to begin the process of>being the good, competent . . . scholars that we really are, and that is>be precise, be specific, state it, put it on the line, leave the rest,>and let us move forward.>>>>

When we look at the questions of this document, we also have to ask,>"Why is it that we have no similar document about heterosexual priests?">(applause). It's very interesting to me that the assumption is that we>need to somehow curb the sexual urges or desires of our homosexual>presbyters. But frankly, as a woman, as just a woman . . . as a good>middle-aged woman, I can reflect back in my youth, when frankly, having>to deal with passes, unwanted interest, whatever from some of our>ordained members of the clergy. I'm sure there are countless numbers of>other women who can speak to that issue.>>>>

The fact of the matter is we have a climate in our priesthood that says>sexual activity is okay. You can be sexually active as long as you go to>Confession and you don't let anybody know you're doing it in public.>Perhaps what this document is really uncovering for us is the fact that>we do have that issue and we do have that problem in the Church. We do>have sexually active gay priests. We do have sexually active>heterosexual priests. And the problem is we need a redefinition,>recommitment, re-understanding of the word celibacy.By making statements>such as we have in this document, that says all homosexuals are called>to celibacy, it does in fact cheapen and give us once again confusion>around the meaning of celibacy.>>>>

Celibacy, as I understand it-and I think as most of the Church history>teaches-has meant that one has decided, in a very intimate and singular>way, to make his or her life devotedly and devoutly with God in Christ.>It is not about the fact that I choose not to have sex; that's called>abstinence. And we may choose to abstain from sex. There are people who>are in fact married who have for whatever number of reasons had to>abstain from sex. Some because they've simply forgotten how to engage in>it (laughter) . . . and I say that because of the fact that as we know>within our positions [as catechists] we've had so many, many people who>have been put in the situation of having to be repressed about their>sexuality.>>>>

My fear of this document, unless it has a comparable heterosexual>document, is that it will in fact simply, once again, force us into>repressing other people about their sexuality. I'm sorry, but the>asexual nun just doesn't do it in the world anymore. We don't need to>put thousands of pounds of coif on our women, or we don't need to>suddenly make our men walk around as if they're all macho butches. But>what we really need to do is to have very real human beings who have>that life-giving force known as our sexuality that allows them to engage>in affective, meaningful relationships with men and with women--and>respectful relationships. That kind of scenario presented to us in>doctrine does not intentionally call for repression, but it certainly>can be read and be interpreted in that fashion.>>>>

When we deal with our sexuality, I think we must be very cautious, and I>don't know about you, but I really don't care to know anyone else's>orientation. I have far too many other issues, far too many other>concerns in my life to worry about with whom, where and how someone else>fantasizes to do something privately with another. I leave matters of>one's orientation between the individual and his or her God, and if the>individual is so inclined, perhaps between the two of them or himself>and his confessor. But we've forgotten about the fact . . . because>we're too busy forcing people out of the Church.>>>>

We have to begin the process of looking at the questions, asking others,>forcing others, or even creating a climate in which others feel that>they must step into the public to proclaim their sexuality, says right>then and there we are morally and sexually in trouble.>>>>As Church, we need to begin a process of growing up . . . We need to>deal with our sexual ethics in a way that really allows our moral>theologians to really give us some solid, sound reflections on what it>means to live not in the year 1549 about sex, but to live in the year>2006.>>>>

It's a whole new ball game. It's a whole new world. We've lost an awful>lot of credibility. We need to regain our credibility, and we need to>assist our bishops in being the most credible individuals they can>possibly be as they lead this Church and lead us hopefully deeper into>Christ and God.>>>>

When we look at the questions presented to us in this document, I see,>to put it succinctly, four problems that need to be addressed here. One>is that we need to address the question of pedophiles in our midst.>Second, we need to address the question of sexually active gay priests.>We need to address that. we need to assist them in finding once again>their lives as members of this Church and as individuals who have>professed celibacy. If you do not wish to be celibate, it is fine; we>need once again to make laicization available. It is okay if you want to>live in a selective relationship, but it does mean that that individual>makes that choice as an adult and not as one who chooses to hide.>>>>

Third, we have to address the question of our sexually active>heterosexual priests, and in the same fashion that I would say to our>gay brothers, we must also say to our heterosexual siblings, you too are>called to be celibate, and if so, be celibate. If not, once again, we>would ask Rome to make available laicization.>>>>

And then the crunch word, that it's time for us to simply calm down and>be honest about who we are and what we have been about. It also means,>parenthetically, we have to make certain that we as a Church never>return again to a practice of taking 13-year-old males and placing them>in same-sex environments and telling them that this is the natural path>to the service of God, the Church, and the Gospel (applause).>>>>

I say to you, both our gay priests and our heterosexual priests, I know>it is hard to hear me say so pointedly and so directly what I've said>about being inactive sexually. But I do say to us as a Church part of>the reason we have this problem is because we did not allow these men>the grace of growing up to be men who understood what it meant to be>sexual human beings. We rarely did that to women, and we do have some>nuns and some sisters who are still paying the psychological price for>having been pre-pubescent individuals who were suddenly being trained to>live a lifestyle that was never meant for anyone who did not have the>maturity to fall deeply in love with the Lord God and develop a>relationship.>>>>

And those are the facts, and that is who we are as a church. And we need>to be very honest as a church . . . To those of us who would like to>continue to force everyone else not to know or understand their>sexuality, I really invite the repressed among us and those who are very>taken with the sexual orientations of others, to kindly seek and find>what we have at Catholic Charities as some of the best and the brightest>psychologists and therapists on the face of the earth (applause).>>>>

So, once again, we must deal with the facts of being Church. The issue>of homosexuality and the priesthood frankly is a non-issue. This is>about individuals called by God to serve the Lord, the Gospel and the>Church. And it seems as if it's a big issue because of the problems and>the issues that affect us around pedophiles, et cetera, but we really>have to begin the process now of healing, of moving forward, and being>about the work of spreading the Gospel.>>>>

I want to add one further proviso on this. One of the things we do want>to remind ourselves: We don't take any litmus test at baptism. We really>don't try to figure out who's going to grow up to be gay or who's going>to grow up to be straight, or who might have some confusion later in>life about orientation. And that's what that means, is that as long as>we're going to practice infant baptism, we had best be about the>business of accepting the fact that we are going to have gay, lesbian,>bisexual individuals-although I have a problem with bisexuality-we have>to deal with those questions, and we are going to have to be conscious>of the fact that we baptize as infants all the members of the Church.>All stand equally in Christ's love. We cannot continue to beat one>another, but rather we need to invite one another to be Christ in the>midst of this world. Amen.

7 Comments:

Blogger Jared said...

This response is pretty long. Sorry Quintero.

Here we go then, one sentence at a time, if we must.

I’m grateful for their recipe for my arrogance…?

I hope you mean remedy.

…[W]e’re Church.

We are THE Church, yes. But the hands don’t tell the head what to do.

And I do that not in arrogance but simply to say to them the process of fracturing this body and attempting to put it forth that any one individual has the right to serve in any fashion as a watchdog for Holy Mother Church, I grant you I don't recall we named any of them Pontiff

Um, what? If you’re saying that we, who try to remain faithful to the Magisterium of the Church are not the Pope, then I’ll agree. But, then, if we simply remind you of what the Pope has said and approved to be said about the issues at hand, I would hope you would recognize the lawful authority of which we speak.

[T]o my brothers who know so very deeply that people are after them” … “be not afraid.

Uh, who’s “after” anyone? We’re just trying to remain faithful to Christ. Besides, “Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”

We have an awful lot of evangelization to do, and I don't know about you all, but now that it appears that the Lord has allowed me to return from being in public institutions back into working in Church institutions--for which I'm just profoundly grateful, I must say--I have to say to us, "It's time. We have an awful lot of work to do." And we're going to need every able-bodied individual who can possibly begin to preach, teach, witness to and be present for Christ in the midst of this very, very problematic, schizophrenic world. Amen

You sound like you’re running for office. Are you?

[B]ut really is titled, "Concerning criteria for the discernment of vocations with regard to persons with homosexual tendencies" and yada-yada-yada-yada.

Way to show respect for the teaching authority of the Church. It is at this point that, since you hold no respect for Her teachings, I lose all respect for yours.

It is an instruction attempting--and it is, I must say, given how some of the more recent documents have been written on the subject of homosexuality--it is a very well-written document.

Ummm, was that a complete sentence?

I think the document reflects very well, in my opinion, the perspectives of the Church.

Yes. Yes it does. And since “we are the Church,” it reflects my perspectives as well. The thing is, they’re not simply perspectives; they’re facts.

It attempts to find a way to address a problem that we as a Church have had for a very, very long time, and that is that somehow or other, across a significant moment in the life of this Church, we have had individuals slip into our midst who are in fact predators, who prey upon our children and prey upon the children of others.

Okay, see, you’re slipping here. It NEVER specifically addresses the abuse scandal. If the document is obeyed, it will certainly help to prevent those things from happening, but it never does address it But to a greater extent, it addresses the issue of homosexually-tempted priests in general, without regard to the scandal. Read it again. You’ll discover that it has a great deal to say about the FACT that people with these temptations have a disorder. It is, sad to say, a mental illness, one that makes it difficult for the sufferer to properly relate to individuals due to his affective immaturity. It discusses the need for a priest to be both a spiritual father to his flock and a spouse of the (feminine) Church (who is the Bride of Christ). These facts alone demand a well-adjusted, mental stable, affectively mature man. And that isn’t the description of an individual who holds deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

Let me put it this way: a beat cop can’t have an irrational fear of guns. He’ll never be able to do his job well, as those he protects have a right to expect. So, for this and many other reasons, not every individual who might want to be a cop could fulfill all of the duties that that vocation entails.

In the same way, not every man who wants to be a priest is capable of doing so. A priest hits the spiritual street every day. He has to effectively and affectively relate to people in a way that an individual with a disorder cannot. Every day, he runs the risk, as an agent of God, of running up against the normal temptations and snares of the Devil that everyone faces. Heaven help him if he enters that fray with a weakness like this disorder. Oh, I know that some will scoff at my mention of spiritual warfare. As the esteemed “theologian” Bultman once said, we can’t use electricity and still believe in Satan. Except if we want to remain true to Jesus. He told Simon Peter that Satan wanted to sift him like wheat. (Luke 22: 31-32) And that’s precisely what he’ll do to all clergy, if given the clawhold.

Suffice it to say that I’m not going to repeat the entire document in question. You can read it (again?) here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

Now, you bring up this supposed difference between homosexuality and “pedophilism,” oops, I meant pedophilia. But let’s look at the facts both of the abuse scandal and in general, shall we?

81% of the victims were male. Of those the majority were in their teens. This simply does NOT fit definition of pedophilia.

Homosexuals statistically abuse minors between the ages of 17 and under at a higher percentage rate than heterosexuals. A 2000 study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "The best epidemiological evidence indicates that only 2-4% of men attracted to adults prefer men. In contrast, around 25-40% of men attracted to children prefer boys. Thus, the rate of homosexual attraction is 620 times higher among pedophiles."

Another Archives of Sexual Behavior in the same year found that". . . all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories" ages 15 and 20.

Still another study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that "Pedophilia appears to have a greater than chance association with … homosexuality.”

A 1988 study of 229 convicted child molesters published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that 86% of pedophiles described themselves as homosexual or bisexual.

Homosexual activists Karla Jay and I Allen Young revealed in their 1979 Gay Report that 73% of all homosexuals have acted as "chicken hawks" - that is, they have preyed on adolescent or younger boys. (By the way, “chicken” in the gay vocabulary, refers to a young boy. "The Queens' Vernacular" http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=16461
(QV), a book which is advertised as, "Everyman's dictionary to the gay underworld" contains 254 words pertaining to young boys. Interesting? Telling, is more like it.)

The statistics do go on and on. It’s just a fact that these abusers had homosexual tendencies.

[W]e do need to encourage our bishops, just as they have placed exorcists in our dioceses--I do sincerely believe that our bishops should appoint one priest to be the one who is the individual who asks all the pedophiles, ‘Who did you rape?’

Okay, so many things wrong with this. Firstly, it’s “whom” not “who.” I wouldn’t make a big deal out of that but for the fact that you, Ms. Gordon, are a teacher and should know better. Secondly, I truly wish that every diocese had an exorcist. And I would like your idea of an inquisitor to ferret out the pedophile but, if we then do as we should and HAND THE SCUM OVER TO THE POLICE, we won’t need to ask them whom they raped. The cops will do that. And then, we can try to help the victims.

I don’t really know what a ‘gay lifestyle’ is.

What do we have to spell it out? Please, don’t make me get graphic. If you really don’t know, go to the dictionary, look up “sodomy” and then look up “promiscuity.” I think you’ll get the picture.

Why is it that we have no similar document about heterosexual priests?

Because heterosexuality is not a disorder. Not to say that straight priests can break their vows of celibacy, but they, by definition, have a more well-adjusted, more mature sexuality.

The fact of the matter is we have a climate in our priesthood that says sexual activity is okay. You can be sexually active as long as you go to Confession and you don't let anybody know you're doing it in public.

I really have NO idea where you get that notion. I’ve honestly NEVER heard it.

Ms. Gordon, you mention repression. Do you even know what that word means? It’s a technical term for when someone pushes an impulse so deep that it acts itself out in OTHER, damaging ways. In other words, it’s a SUBCONSCIOUS phenomenon, by definition, and you‘d never know you had it unless diagnosed by a psychologist. If you mean “suppression,” that’s different. Suppression can be healthy. Besides, in today’s sex-saturated society, do you really, honestly believe that ANYONE is “repressed.”

I have far too many other issues, far too many other concerns in my life to worry about with whom, where and how someone else fantasizes to do something privately with another.

That’s not very Christ-like of you, since Jesus said that whoever so much as LOOKS at another with lust in his heart has already committed adultery.

We need to deal with our sexual ethics in a way that really allows our moral theologians to really give us some solid, sound reflections on what it means to live not in the year 1549 about sex, but to live in the year 2006.

Come on, you’re better than that. The Church stands for timeless truths. God laws don’t change just because the calendar does. What a very un-Catholic idea! Haven’t you ever heard of what GK Chesterton calls “democracy of the dead.” It’s Tradition. It’s giving a vote to those who went before. It’s learning from the wisdom of those who’ve preceded us.

[I]t is hard to hear me say so pointedly and so directly what I've said about being inactive sexually.

Come on, now. Celibacy isn’t about shutting down your sexuality. It’s about understanding is deeper meaning, beyond it possible physical expression. Please do yourself a favor and read Pope John Paul II’s Theology of the Body before you start jabbering about sexuality.

To those of us who would like to continue to force everyone else not to know or understand their sexuality, I really invite the repressed among us and those who are very taken with the sexual orientations of others, to kindly seek and find what we have at Catholic Charities as some of the best and the brightest psychologists and therapists on the face of the earth .

But it is you who is misunderstanding and trying to get others to misunderstand their sexuality. It is you who has not understood that homosexuality is a disorder that needs treatment.

And no, we don’t take a litmus test at baptism. That’s because all are capable of living a truly Christian life. Not all, however, are capable of being good priests.

11:03 PM  
Blogger Venerable Aussie said...

"We need to deal with our sexual ethics in a way that really allows our moral theologians to really give us some solid, sound reflections on what it means to live not in the year 1549 about sex, but to live in the year 2006. It's a whole new ball game. It's a whole new world."

Yep, human nature has sure changed since Adam and Eve.

And what's her problem with bisexuality? (last para.) How uncaring, unloving, repressive can you get! What would Jesus do!

(PS. I'm back)

5:19 AM  
Anonymous Aaron said...

"I leave matters of one's orientation between the individual and his or her God."

Is there more than one God? How "between the individual and God?" This woman is a quack. I'm not sure if she merits a reply.

8:19 AM  
Anonymous MVH said...

One way in which any type of unqualified candidate to the Priesthood can be weeded-out is to keep in mind the fact that the Priesthood isn't a singularly exclusive club that is unjustly denying entry to those who want to "join."

Frankly, memership in the Priesthood is NOT a "civil right." It is a grace and a privilege. And those men capable of giving their all, just like Our Lord, for the love of the Church, are the only ones who can truly be Priests.

Unfrotunately, the types of whinny excuses used in this posting are used to open the Priesthood to anyone . . . after all "there's a Priest shortage and we need all we can get!" No, the reallity is that you get Priests like Rev. Chris Carpenter, late of Mesa Arizona, who believe that the Priesthood is about indulgence and not sacrifice. The reality is that one has to decide if your are a Catholic who is______[you fill in the blank], or a _______Catholic. What is primary in your life?

And last but not least, a Priest is ALTER CRISTUS--Another Christ. That single fact alone trumps ALL types of arguments that cry, "unfair!"

5:41 PM  
Blogger bobnd said...

The priest is in persona christi(in the place of Christ). This woman is a quack or someone who is suffering from a disorder. Turn the tables on some of these young people because some of them seduce unhealthy clergy also. God sustains man and not the other way around. Man has to have control and be emotionally mature to function as a priest. A priest should be a man not afraid of who he is as a person and healthy enough to be able to deal with people who will try to take him down. They have to think of the priesthood not as a career but as a life and living one with the father should be the main theme.

1:37 PM  
Blogger Quintero said...

Dear Jared,

No apology needed! On the contrary, thank you for your excellent analysis and research. You hit a lot of nails on the head, and you supply many important facts and insights.

Your respect and love for the priesthood shine through in the way you defend it. Thank you.

A few observations:

It is sickening of those who are fracturing the Church to accuse the faithful of that same crime.

Dissenters lash out against faithful watchdogs because they hate having their dissent exposed.

You are so right -- the lady really showed her colors when she said, "yada-yada-yada" in referring to a Vatican document.

And yes, it is goofy to think that morality could change for any reason, let alone what year it is -- as in, "we're in 2006, not 1549." It is the same as if, in 1549, someone had said, "Update yourself and get with the times. This is 1549, not 1092."

10:27 PM  
Blogger Quintero said...

Dear Everyone,

Thank you for writing! Your comments really make it clear how much you love the priesthood.

God bless you and reward you.

10:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Site Meter