The document has been released. Catholic World News has an unofficial translation of the document here. Everyone is talking about the Vatican's pronouncement on the ordination of homosexual men. But what does it mean?
The document lists three situations in which a man should not enter the seminary or priesthood. The first is where the person is practicing homosexuality. The third is where the person is supporting the gay culture. These two are obvious. If you are deliberately flouting a central teaching of the Church, that the act of homosexual relations is a sin, then you should not be in a position of teaching others about the truths of the Church.
But what about the second situation? That is where a person has "profound deep-rooted homosexual tendencies." What does that mean? This is the phrase that has people tied in knots. Does this mean that any man who is attracted to other men can never be a priest? Is simple orientation enough to exclude one from the priesthood?
I decided to approach this in a legalistic fashion. I first looked up the definition of "tendencies" on the Merriam-Webster website. Webster defines tendency as "direction or approach toward a place, object, effect, or limit; a proneness to a particular kind of thought or action; the purposeful trend of something written or said : AIM b : deliberate but indirect advocacy."
All of these definitions seem to involve something more than just an "orientation." Rather, they seem to indicate some sort of movement. If we apply these phrases to the current issue, homosexual tendencies would be defined as: "direction or approach toward homosexuality; a proneness to homosexual thought or action; the purposeful trend of homosexuality; deliberate but indirect advocacy of homosexuality."
Webster goes further and states that "tendency implies an inclination sometimes amounting to an impelling force." Webster also mentions the following as synonyms: trend, drift, tenor and current. Each of those words, defined, also imply movement towards something. Thus, the Vatican's use of the word "tendencies" appears not to indicate that homosexual orientation alone would exclude someone from the priesthood. Rather, the phrase seems to require some sort of compulsion on the part of the man to engage in homosexual behavior or to excuse or advocate the homosexual behavior of others.
The question then becomes, how much of a compulsion are we talking about? Surely all of us feel lust at times. Can you really exclude candidates simply for having lustful thoughts about men? Wouldn't many heterosexual priest fail if such a standard were applied to them?
I would say that such a standard does already apply to heterosexual priests. Every person has carnal desires, whether married or unmarried, gay or straight. Some people control these desires better than others. If a heterosexual or homosexual man spends a significant amount of time thinking about sex, imagining sex, then that man is not a good candidate for the priesthood. That man can still be a good Catholic and perhaps will even become a recognized saint someday. But right now, that man should concentrate on controlling his own thoughts and actions. I think this is what profound deep-rooted tendencies means.
I also think that men who would show profound tendencies toward other types of sin would not be suitable candidates for the priesthood. Thus, if a man had a constant urge to steal, even if he did not actually do so, then he should not enter the priesthood. Perhaps a monestary, if he feels such desire, but not the priesthood. He should concentrate instead on battling his personal demons.
Obviously there is an unclear middle-ground. Some men will have more than just fleeting impulses of lust that occur for everyone, yet those thoughts may not significantly interfere with their day to day goings on. It is impossible to write a definition to govern every possible situation in which men might find themselves. The Vatican deals with this by placing responsibility for the decision on both the candidate and the candidate's superiors and spiritual director. I think that a candidate who knows he has not just fleeting thoughts but compulsions to lust, again either heterosexual or homosexual, and yet feels his desire to become a priest is more important than honoring the Church's position, disqualifies himself for a more basic reason - his inability to put others' needs and desires before his own. Also, I think candidates should have faith in the ability of their superiors and spiritual director to discern, with the help of God, whether the man's inclinations amount to something profound and deep-rooted. If the candidate cannot have such faith, how will he have faith in his superiors and spiritual director on other issues? Such inability also disqualifies one from being a priest in the Church.
Many people have said that this document will discourage even those with fleeting homosexual urges from considering the preisthood. That may be true, but I don't see how this document could have been better worded. From a legal perspective, it draws the lines about as clearly as it can while still leaving room for judgment and discretion on the part of the candidate and the superiors and spiritual directors. From a theological perspective, the document simply reinforces a teaching of the Church that has been unchecked for some time. From a 'good of the Church' perspective, I believe it is more important to have fewer priests that are stronger in their faith and more clearly devoted to the teachings of the Magisterium than it is to have bodies up at the pulpit who may go astray in their preaching and counseling.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Mark Shea makes the Wall Street Journal Online!
I am a devoted fan of James Taranto's "Best of the Web" on opinionjournal.com. Opinion Journal is the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal Online. Today's piece included a discussion that has been brewing on Mark Shea's site regarding torture of prisoners. Taranto begins his piece as follows:
Mark Shea is a blogger we had never heard of until yesterday, when Andrew Sullivan
linked us to one of his posts.
Okay, obviously we Catholics need to do a better job of promoting Catholic authors.
James Taranto frequently discusses Sullivan and his blog, and his mention of Mark Shea's blog is incidental to that. However, since Mark is one of the current high-profile apologists for the Church, I suggest that Taranto should check out his blogs on torture of terrorists, particularly Mark's post dated November 24 entitled "Krauthammer Pleads for Hard Cases to Make Law," and the 88 comments that followed, many of which were follow ups by Mark debating his readers.
Specifically, Mark prefers to refer to those of us who do not oppose the current detention and interrogation of terrorists as the "Rubber Hose Right." Mark asserts that those supporting the current policies regarding detainees do so under a false scenario, the "ticking-bomb scenario," and that even in such circumstances, torture cannot be justified. However, by making these arguments, Mark appears to be side-stepping the real issue by assuming that everything which is done to the detainees to obtain information constitutes 'torture.' For example, Mark supports Senator McCain's bill, which would ban "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of detainees. However, it is unclear what would constitute such conduct. Does turning down the air-conditioning in the cell consttute degrading or cruel treatment? Does it constitute torture?
Further, Mark quotes an article by David Luban at the Washington Post. Luban argues against the ticking time-bomb scenario by stating that most information is not gathered in a time-pressed situation where we have only one hour to gather information. He specifically mentions how the interrogation of Mohamed Qatani, the 20th Hijacker, gave us information concerning Al-Qaeda, but how the Pentagon never claimed that any of that information helped prevent any terrorist attacks. Of course, it's a fallacy to think that the Pentagon's failure to state such means the opposite is true. However, and more importantly, if Qatani had been picked up two years before 9/11, it is certainly possible that we would have learned valuable information. Would that have fallen under the "ticking-bomb scenario"? Osama Bin-Laden spent years planning 9/11, and although many dots could have and should have been connected during that time, those dots weren't.
Somehow I don't find comfort in the thought that we are expected to rely on the same intelligence-gathering methods in use before 9/11 to protect the country. If any of the current detainees have information on a grand plan that is set to take place 5 years from now, I would prefer to learn about it now and not take the chance that we can learn of it some other way.
So we are back to the question of what is permissible. Forget about the words torture, abuse, cruel treatment. Let's make a list of what we are permitted to do. I would be greatly interested in hearing Mark give his opinion on the following questions:
1. If we encounter a terrorist outside the U.S., do you believe we are allowed to detain him or her? If so, for how long?
2. Are we required to provide each detainee from outside the U.S. with an attorney? Are we allowed to question the detainees without an attorney?
3. Are interrogators permitted to shout at detainees during interrogation?
4. Are interrogators permitted to deprive detainees of sleep in order to secure cooperation?
5. Are interrogators permitted to use drugs on detainees to obtain information?
6. Are interrogators permitted to slap detainees during interrogation?
7. Are interrogators permitted to withhold food in any amount to secure cooperation? If so, how much or for how long before it becomes cruel or abuse?
8. Are interrogators permitted to place detainees in solitary confinement to secure cooperation?
Mark, I do not ask you these questions to provoke you or put you on the spot. I sincerely wish to know what you consider acceptable and non-acceptable treatment.
If that makes me a member of the Rubber Hose Right, so be it.
Mark Shea is a blogger we had never heard of until yesterday, when Andrew Sullivan
linked us to one of his posts.
Okay, obviously we Catholics need to do a better job of promoting Catholic authors.
James Taranto frequently discusses Sullivan and his blog, and his mention of Mark Shea's blog is incidental to that. However, since Mark is one of the current high-profile apologists for the Church, I suggest that Taranto should check out his blogs on torture of terrorists, particularly Mark's post dated November 24 entitled "Krauthammer Pleads for Hard Cases to Make Law," and the 88 comments that followed, many of which were follow ups by Mark debating his readers.
Specifically, Mark prefers to refer to those of us who do not oppose the current detention and interrogation of terrorists as the "Rubber Hose Right." Mark asserts that those supporting the current policies regarding detainees do so under a false scenario, the "ticking-bomb scenario," and that even in such circumstances, torture cannot be justified. However, by making these arguments, Mark appears to be side-stepping the real issue by assuming that everything which is done to the detainees to obtain information constitutes 'torture.' For example, Mark supports Senator McCain's bill, which would ban "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of detainees. However, it is unclear what would constitute such conduct. Does turning down the air-conditioning in the cell consttute degrading or cruel treatment? Does it constitute torture?
Further, Mark quotes an article by David Luban at the Washington Post. Luban argues against the ticking time-bomb scenario by stating that most information is not gathered in a time-pressed situation where we have only one hour to gather information. He specifically mentions how the interrogation of Mohamed Qatani, the 20th Hijacker, gave us information concerning Al-Qaeda, but how the Pentagon never claimed that any of that information helped prevent any terrorist attacks. Of course, it's a fallacy to think that the Pentagon's failure to state such means the opposite is true. However, and more importantly, if Qatani had been picked up two years before 9/11, it is certainly possible that we would have learned valuable information. Would that have fallen under the "ticking-bomb scenario"? Osama Bin-Laden spent years planning 9/11, and although many dots could have and should have been connected during that time, those dots weren't.
Somehow I don't find comfort in the thought that we are expected to rely on the same intelligence-gathering methods in use before 9/11 to protect the country. If any of the current detainees have information on a grand plan that is set to take place 5 years from now, I would prefer to learn about it now and not take the chance that we can learn of it some other way.
So we are back to the question of what is permissible. Forget about the words torture, abuse, cruel treatment. Let's make a list of what we are permitted to do. I would be greatly interested in hearing Mark give his opinion on the following questions:
1. If we encounter a terrorist outside the U.S., do you believe we are allowed to detain him or her? If so, for how long?
2. Are we required to provide each detainee from outside the U.S. with an attorney? Are we allowed to question the detainees without an attorney?
3. Are interrogators permitted to shout at detainees during interrogation?
4. Are interrogators permitted to deprive detainees of sleep in order to secure cooperation?
5. Are interrogators permitted to use drugs on detainees to obtain information?
6. Are interrogators permitted to slap detainees during interrogation?
7. Are interrogators permitted to withhold food in any amount to secure cooperation? If so, how much or for how long before it becomes cruel or abuse?
8. Are interrogators permitted to place detainees in solitary confinement to secure cooperation?
Mark, I do not ask you these questions to provoke you or put you on the spot. I sincerely wish to know what you consider acceptable and non-acceptable treatment.
If that makes me a member of the Rubber Hose Right, so be it.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Corpus Christi gay play at UNL
I heard about this on the KVSS morning show today. UNL is sponsoring a play called "Corpus Christi", which operates from the prospective that Christ and the Apostles were gay. Bruce and Kris were urging Catholics to protest the play and to contact the UNL Chancellor, Harvey Perlman, to express their displeasure.
Here is a link with some information: http://www.tfp.org/what_we_do/index/corpus_christi_u_nebraska.htm
While I support the general idea of protesting the play, I have absolutely no belief that Perlman would ever stop the play's performance. I knew Perlman when he was dean of the law school. He views his political correctness as a key to acheiving his legacy, which is what he is all about.
Speaking of legacy, if you're one of the (millions? lol) of fans angry about the ouster of Solich and the hiring of Callahan, stop putting all the blame on Petersen, and look instead to the man who hired him, again in an attempt to secure a legacy. Perlman hired Petersen specifically because Perlman was looking to change the way Nebraska football is played.
Here is a link with some information: http://www.tfp.org/what_we_do/index/corpus_christi_u_nebraska.htm
While I support the general idea of protesting the play, I have absolutely no belief that Perlman would ever stop the play's performance. I knew Perlman when he was dean of the law school. He views his political correctness as a key to acheiving his legacy, which is what he is all about.
Speaking of legacy, if you're one of the (millions? lol) of fans angry about the ouster of Solich and the hiring of Callahan, stop putting all the blame on Petersen, and look instead to the man who hired him, again in an attempt to secure a legacy. Perlman hired Petersen specifically because Perlman was looking to change the way Nebraska football is played.
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
Anglican Apologetics
The previous post is sort of a lead-in to this post.
So, on the subject of apologetics, I would like to know how the Anglican/Episcopalian Church defends its formation and continued existence. My previous understanding was that the Anglican Church was formed when King Henry VIII desired to divorce and remarry. The Roman Catholic Church told him he could not do that, so King Henry declared that a new church would be formed and subject to his authority. According to the Church of England's official website (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/history/), the split had more to do with a "Tudor nationalist belief that authority over the English Church properly belonged to the English monarchy." The Anglican Domain, a website for the Anglican/Episcopalian Church around the world (www.anglican.org), states that a split between England and Rome had been coming for a long time.
"The beginning of the sixteenth century showed significant discontent with the Roman church. Martin Luther's famous 95 Theses were nailed to the door of the church in Wittenburg in 1517, and news of this challenge had certainly reached England when, 20 years later, the Anglican branch of the church formally challenged the authority of Rome. Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries and abbeys in 1536.
There is a public perception, especially in the United States, that Henry VIII created the Anglican church in anger over the Pope's refusal to grant his divorce, but the historical record indicates that Henry spent most of his reign challenging the authority of Rome, and that the divorce issue was just one of a series of acts that collectively split the English church from the Roman church in much the same way that the Orthodox church had split off five hundred years before." (emphasis added)
Contrary to the assertion of the Anglican Domain, the split was not like the split from the Orthodox church for one basic but extremely important reason: The Church of England declared that it was and is subject to the authority of the King and/or Queen, while the Orthodox Churches declared that they were subject to the authority of bishops of the Church. The Orthodox Church may have rejected the primacy of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, but they did so on the basis that, in their opinion, the Bishop of Rome was equal to, not greater than, the other major bishops of the time, e.g. the Bishop of Constantinople. The Church of England, on the other hand, declared that the supreme authority over it did not rest with a bishop, a priest, or anyone with holy orders of any sort, but a layman who just happened to rule a political entity.
So here is my question: What is the basis for believing that the authority of the Church of England properly rests with the King or Queen? What is the theological basis for believing that the leaders of the Church of England can and must be appointed by the government?
Please be aware that I do not write this as some sort of attack on the Anglican Church. I sincerely seek the answers to these questions. It is not enough to explain to other churches why the Catholic Church is the true Church. The only way that unification of all churches will ever succeed is if we first understand why all other Christian denominations believe in the authority of their churches.
So, on the subject of apologetics, I would like to know how the Anglican/Episcopalian Church defends its formation and continued existence. My previous understanding was that the Anglican Church was formed when King Henry VIII desired to divorce and remarry. The Roman Catholic Church told him he could not do that, so King Henry declared that a new church would be formed and subject to his authority. According to the Church of England's official website (http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/history/), the split had more to do with a "Tudor nationalist belief that authority over the English Church properly belonged to the English monarchy." The Anglican Domain, a website for the Anglican/Episcopalian Church around the world (www.anglican.org), states that a split between England and Rome had been coming for a long time.
"The beginning of the sixteenth century showed significant discontent with the Roman church. Martin Luther's famous 95 Theses were nailed to the door of the church in Wittenburg in 1517, and news of this challenge had certainly reached England when, 20 years later, the Anglican branch of the church formally challenged the authority of Rome. Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries and abbeys in 1536.
There is a public perception, especially in the United States, that Henry VIII created the Anglican church in anger over the Pope's refusal to grant his divorce, but the historical record indicates that Henry spent most of his reign challenging the authority of Rome, and that the divorce issue was just one of a series of acts that collectively split the English church from the Roman church in much the same way that the Orthodox church had split off five hundred years before." (emphasis added)
Contrary to the assertion of the Anglican Domain, the split was not like the split from the Orthodox church for one basic but extremely important reason: The Church of England declared that it was and is subject to the authority of the King and/or Queen, while the Orthodox Churches declared that they were subject to the authority of bishops of the Church. The Orthodox Church may have rejected the primacy of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, but they did so on the basis that, in their opinion, the Bishop of Rome was equal to, not greater than, the other major bishops of the time, e.g. the Bishop of Constantinople. The Church of England, on the other hand, declared that the supreme authority over it did not rest with a bishop, a priest, or anyone with holy orders of any sort, but a layman who just happened to rule a political entity.
So here is my question: What is the basis for believing that the authority of the Church of England properly rests with the King or Queen? What is the theological basis for believing that the leaders of the Church of England can and must be appointed by the government?
Please be aware that I do not write this as some sort of attack on the Anglican Church. I sincerely seek the answers to these questions. It is not enough to explain to other churches why the Catholic Church is the true Church. The only way that unification of all churches will ever succeed is if we first understand why all other Christian denominations believe in the authority of their churches.
Monday, November 28, 2005
Protestant Apologetics
For those who are unaware, the term "apologetics" refers to the act of defending one's point of view. In the case of religion, it refers to the defense of one's religion against those who challenge its truth or accuracy. I have been interested in apologetics for many years.
I have perused two types of apologetics materials: those materials which defend that Catholic faith against Protestant religions, and those which defend Christianity in general against athiests and non-Christian religions. I have also seen, though I have not read, Jewish apologetics materials. I have yet to see, however, any apologetics materials defending specific Protestant religions against the Catholic faith or other Protestant denominations.
In case you're wondering, I'm not trying to prove any part of Catholicism wrong. I have long since recognized that the Catholic Church is the original Church of Christ and the Lord's Kingdom on earth. However, I have never been satisfied with simply knowing my own arguments for my position. I always want to know what the other side's arguments are against my position so that I know how to counter such views.
To continue, there are hundreds of books and articles by various Protestant groups which make base criticisms against the Church. However, these don't seem to arise to the level which I would term apologetics. For example, Protestants continually assert that the Catholic Church bears little resemblance to the Church of the first and second century, and that the early Church did not believe in a "real presence." This is easily refuted simply by reading the writings of the Church fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch or Turtullian. One would think that Protestants would be well-prepared to address these writings. Yet I cannot seem to find material that reaches that level of discussion.
If anyone knows of any such books or articles to which you can refer me, I would be most appreciative.
I have perused two types of apologetics materials: those materials which defend that Catholic faith against Protestant religions, and those which defend Christianity in general against athiests and non-Christian religions. I have also seen, though I have not read, Jewish apologetics materials. I have yet to see, however, any apologetics materials defending specific Protestant religions against the Catholic faith or other Protestant denominations.
In case you're wondering, I'm not trying to prove any part of Catholicism wrong. I have long since recognized that the Catholic Church is the original Church of Christ and the Lord's Kingdom on earth. However, I have never been satisfied with simply knowing my own arguments for my position. I always want to know what the other side's arguments are against my position so that I know how to counter such views.
To continue, there are hundreds of books and articles by various Protestant groups which make base criticisms against the Church. However, these don't seem to arise to the level which I would term apologetics. For example, Protestants continually assert that the Catholic Church bears little resemblance to the Church of the first and second century, and that the early Church did not believe in a "real presence." This is easily refuted simply by reading the writings of the Church fathers, such as Ignatius of Antioch or Turtullian. One would think that Protestants would be well-prepared to address these writings. Yet I cannot seem to find material that reaches that level of discussion.
If anyone knows of any such books or articles to which you can refer me, I would be most appreciative.
First Steps....
I've thought long and hard about this weblog. I have wanted to do this for months, but I never seemed to get around to it. Now that I've jumped in, I hope to post at least three times a week
The main purpose of this blog is to share my thoughts and questions about the Church with other people in Omaha. I do not profess to be an expert on any topics by any means. I am just one Catholic who wishes I could be a better Christian. I hope that by updating this blog, I will be more mindful of my own sinfulness and shortcomings and be able to guard better against temptations. I also hope to increase my knowledge of the Church, and to share what little knowledge I do have with others.
If anyone has questions or comments or would like to explore a particular subject, please let me know.
The main purpose of this blog is to share my thoughts and questions about the Church with other people in Omaha. I do not profess to be an expert on any topics by any means. I am just one Catholic who wishes I could be a better Christian. I hope that by updating this blog, I will be more mindful of my own sinfulness and shortcomings and be able to guard better against temptations. I also hope to increase my knowledge of the Church, and to share what little knowledge I do have with others.
If anyone has questions or comments or would like to explore a particular subject, please let me know.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)