DOESN'T IT MAKE YOU WANT TO CRY?

Statement by Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York and Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco on the "U.S. Supreme Court decisions June 26 striking down part of the Defense of Marriage Act and refusing to rule on the merits of a challenge to California’s Proposition 8":

Today is a tragic day for marriage and our nation. The Supreme Court has dealt a profound injustice to the American people by striking down in part the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Court got it wrong. The federal government ought to respect the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, even where states fail to do so. The preservation of liberty and justice requires that all laws, federal and state, respect the truth, including the truth about marriage. It is also unfortunate that the Court did not take the opportunity to uphold California’s Proposition 8 but instead decided not to rule on the matter. The common good of all, especially our children, depends upon a society that strives to uphold the truth of marriage. Now is the time to redouble our efforts in witness to this truth. These decisions are part of a public debate of great consequence. The future of marriage and the well-being of our society hang in the balance.

Sad, just sad.  And I repeat my mantra: If marriage between a man and woman is foundational to the well-being of our society, why have not the cardinal and the archbishop done their duty by marrying and contributing to the good of society?  Oh yes, I know - celibacy.  Perhaps the church might reconsider the requirement for the well-being of society.

THIS AND THAT ON ABSTINENCE FROM SEX IN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

I have an irritated, streaming eye, so I played hookey from church today.  In addition, it was raining, so altogether too much to overcome, though I was sorry to miss on the feast of the Epiphany.  Never fear.  I shall say my prayers here at home.  

I read Bishop Alan Wilson's excellent blog post on the Church of England as Kafka land, which I urge you to read. I am mystified by the latest anonymous press release from the powers in the Church of England, which basically changes nothing, except that now if a gay candidate for the episcopacy promises not to have sex and to repent of ever "practicing" gay sex, he can be a bishop. Do I have that right? What really has changed?

All that has changed is a grudging recognition of civil partnerships for celibates. The headlines have, however, stimulated vigorous kicking and screaming by people. Lynette Burrows on yesterdays PM programme (18 minutes in) shared with the nation her “instinct that people like me have which is revulsion” about gay people. The role of the Church, she implies, is to validate her instinctive disgust, which she imagines is shared by everybody.

Giles Fraser's response on BBC Saturday PM was very good.  You can hear the shock and outrage in his voice.  Lynette Burrows commentary was truly ugly.  If you wish to listen, the program is available for six days only.

Part of Giles' response on the BBC program is incorporated into his opinion column in the Guardian.

"So, bishop, are you having sex with your partner?" I can't imagine anyone asking that question with a straight face. And what constitutes sex anyway? Snogging? Toe-sucking? (Is there a Church of England position on this?) Yet the new line from the C of E – ludicrously, that gay men in civil partnerships can be bishops as long as they refrain from sex (or to put it another way, we'll have gay bishops as long as they are not really gay) raises the question: how on earth will the authorities ever find out? A CCTV in every bedroom? Chastity belts in fetching liturgical colours? No, the only way the bedroom police could ever really know is if they ask and play a moral guilt trip about honesty on those being interrogated. So do sexually active gay priests or bishops have a moral responsibility to tell the truth? Actually, I think not. I'd go further: in this situation, they have a moral responsibility to lie.

Well, the lying is certainly being done now, and I understand that clergy and bishops lie for their own self-protection.  Still I'd hope for something like a plan for a grand coming-out party where all, or at least a majority, of gay and lesbian clergy and bishops come out of the closet, while, at the same time, a large majority of straight clergy stand in public support of their brothers and sisters.  What would be the response of the leadership in the church?

Of course, it's easy for me to make such a suggestion, because I risk nothing, and perhaps it's pure fantasy, but what will it take for the leaders in the Church of England to realize how foolish they appear with their decisions to pry into the intimate lives of their bishops and clergy in a discriminatory way in order to prolong the practice of inequality?

As is obvious in the broadcast, the discrimination does not appease the people who oppose the ordination of gay and lesbian clergy and the consecration of gay bishops.  Even Archbishop Eliud Wabukala, the Primate of Kenya and the leader of  FoCA, weighed in, and he is not amused.

IT's graphic of CofE bishops coming out of the closet at The Friends of Jake.

THIS IS WHAT IT TAKES

From the ground up is how change will come.  The AP reports on a Holy Thursday sermon by Pope Benedict critical of a group of Austrian Roman Catholic priests who have taken a stand against celibacy for all RC priests and in favor of the ordination of women.  No steps beyond criticism have yet been taken to discipline the priests.  We shall see.

On the website of the group, the Pfarrer-Initiative is the following declaration.

The Roman refusal to take up long needed reforms and the inaction of the bishops, not only permits but demands that we follow our conscience and act independently:

We priests want to set a mark for the future:

1. WE WILL include a petition for church reform in every liturgy.

2. WE WILL not deny Communion to faithful of good will, especially remarried people, members of other Christian churches, and in some cases those who have officially left the Catholic Church.*

3. WE WILL avoid as much as possible celebrating multiple times on Sundays and feast days, and avoid scheduling priests travelling around or priests unknown to the community. A locally-planned Liturgy of the Word is preferable to providing guest performances.

4. WE WILL use the term “Priestless Eucharistic Celebration” for a Liturgy of the Word with distribution of Communion. This is how the Sunday Mass obligation is fulfilled when priests are in short supply.

5. WE WILL ignore the prohibition of preaching by competently trained laity, including female religion teachers. In difficult times, the Word of God must be proclaimed.

6. WE WILL advocate that every parish has a presiding leader – man or woman, married or unmarried, full-time or part time. Rather than consolidating parishes, We call for a new image of the priest.

7. WE WILL take every opportunity to speak up publicly for the admission of women and married people to the priesthood. These would be welcome colleagues in ministry.

We express solidarity with colleagues no longer permitted to exercise their ministry because we have married, and also with those in ministry who live in a permanent relationship. Both groups live in accordance with their conscience – as we do with our protest. We see in them as we do in our bishops and the pope our brothers. **

* Here we refer to those who officially leave the Church; some to avoid Church Tax as a means of protest

** This is a reference to the German Word "Mitbruder" instead of "Bruder" (=brother) which is sometimes used by clerics and excludes the laity.
Trinity Sunday, 19Th June, 2011

To expect the top levels of the Roman Catholic Church to implement change is unrealistic.  Change will come only from pressure from the folks on the ground, from the priests who serve in parish churches and church parishioners.  I'm pleased to learn of the brave stand by the Austrian priests, and I hope that the movement spreads to other countries.  The majority of the hierarchy seem out of touch with the operations of its parishes where the major work of the church is actually accomplished.

Note: Once you arrive at the website of the Pfarrer-Initiative, click on 'English', if you prefer to read the material in the English language, then scroll down and click on 'Appeal to Disobedience'.  The next link, 'A Plea For a Credible Church' is well worth reading, also.

H/T to Mark Harris at Preludium. 

ANOTHER INSIDER OPINION

About a week ago, I added Andrew Sullivan's The Daily Dish to my Google Reader. New posts appear on his blog with amazing speed. I haven't counted the average number of posts in a single day, but I'm sure it's quite high. His blog is exhausting but worth reading. I wonder - does Andrew even take bathroom breaks?

His post today titled Our Screwed Up Priests is spot on. I know that a good many of you disagree that celibacy and child abuse are related, but I stand by my opinion that there is a connection. By no means am I saying that mandatory celibacy is the sole cause of the abuse of children in the Roman Catholic Church - just that enforced celibacy is in the equation.

Sullivan quotes from an interview on NPR with "Dr. Leslie Lothstein [who] has treated more than 300 Catholic priests" at one of the psychiatric centers to which priests were sent for treatment.

One of the biggest challenges in treating priests, Lothstein says, is that they don't have the same kind of sexual experiences -- or history of talking about such experiences -- that an ordinary adult may have. "Many of the priests tend to be psychosexually immature," he says. "They've never taken a course in healthy sexuality."

He says some of them have gone into minor seminary at age 14 and developed "a sense of self without having appropriate lines of dating, meeting other people, experimenting with touch, kissing, ordinary sexuality."

Back in the day, some boys entered seminary at age 13, when they finished elementary school, however I gather that now one must be 18, at the youngest, to be considered as a candidate for seminary.

Sullivan says:

If celibacy is a mature choice, it can be a wonderful act of self-giving. But when mandatory for all, it prevents many healthy men from entering the priesthood, offers a cover for those terrified of their own sexuality and thereby creates a priesthood dominated by the emotionally immature.

Exactly.

HANS KUNG ON CLERICAL CELIBACY - 2

Read Hans Kung's piece in the National Catholic Reporter titled "Ratzinger's Responsibility".

I know that some of you disagree with me about a connection between celibacy and child abuse amongst priests in the Roman Catholic Church. Mind, I am, by no means, suggesting that celibacy is the sole cause of child abuse by clergy. We know of the connection between having been abused as a child and turning to child abuse as an adult.

In the days of my youth, all sexual outlets were forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church except sex between a man and a woman after a church wedding without the use of any form of birth control. Tell teenage boys and girls with raging hormones, that masturbation is a mortal sin for which they will burn in hell for all eternity. Tell the young teens that having sex with a person to whom you're not married is a mortal sin for which you will burn in hell. An equivalency forms in the minds of a good many of the young people that the two actions are on a par. How can you, in good conscience, urge the teens to wait to have sex, if you forbid them the one sexual outlet that brings harm to no one? If you're going to burn for masturbating, why not just go ahead and have sex at the age of 13, 14, or 15?

Tell seminarians and priests that they may never have a deliberate sinless sexual outlet in their whole lives if they want to be priests. Do you see how screwed up this kind of thinking is? Do you see how such screwed up thinking could lead to abnormal acting out?

In his piece in the NCR, Fr Kung asks and responds to 4 questions:

1st Question: Why does the pope continue to assert that what he calls "holy" celibacy is a "precious gift", thus ignoring the biblical teaching that explicitly permits and even encourages marriage for all office holders in the Church?
....

2nd Question: Is it true, as Archbishop Zollitsch insists, that "all the experts" agree that abuse of minors by clergymen and the celibacy rule have nothing to do with each other? How can he claim to know the opinions of "all the experts"?
....

3rd Question: Instead of merely asking pardon of the victims of abuse, should not the bishops at last admit their own share of blame?

4th Question: Is it not time for Pope Benedict XVI himself to acknowledge his share of responsibility, instead of whining about a campaign against his person? No other person in the Church has had to deal with so many cases of abuse crossing his desk.

Please follow the link to the article in the National Catholic Reporter, because I have not quoted the complete texts of Fr Kung's questions, nor have I included his responses in my post.

Even if you disagree with the premise that there is an association between celibacy and child abuse by RCC clergy, Fr Kung's article is worth a read.

And yes. Feel free to call me obsessed.

HANS KUNG ON CLERICAL CELIBACY

From Ruth Gledhill in the Times Online:

A leading Roman Catholic theologian has linked clerical sex abuse with priestly celibacy, blaming the Church’s “uptight” views on sex for child abuse scandals in Germany, Ireland and the US.

Father Hans Kung, President of the Global Ethic Foundation and professor emeritus at the University of Tübingen in Germany, said that the Church’s attitude was also revealed in its opposition to birth control.

The German church rejected any suggestion that abuse was linked to celibacy, homosexuality or church teaching.
....

Robert Zollitsch, Archbishop of Freiburg and head of the German bishops’ conference, branded clerical abuse “outrageous” and begged forgiveness from the victims but denied any link between abuse and celibacy.

Writing in The Tablet, Father Kung, who in 1979 was stripped of his licence to teach Catholic theology after he rejected the doctrine of Papal infallibility, welcomed the apology but described the denials of any link between abuse, celibacy and other teaching as “erroneous”.

He said that it was the case that abuse was found also in families, schools and other churches. But he asked: “Why is it so prevalent in the Catholic Church under celibate leadership?” He said that celibacy was not the only cause of the misconduct but described it as “the most important and structurally the most decisive” expression of the Church’s uptight attitude to sex. (My emphasis)

Fr Kung's article in The Tablet appears to be available by subscription only, but the article on the German church's resistance to the state's intervention on the abuse is free.

In the comments to my recent post titled Gay Roman Catholic Bishops, I caught flack for saying that mandatory celibacy, in my opinion, contributes to the abusive behavior by priests in the Roman Catholic Church. I don't know what priestly formation is like now in RC seminaries, but for many years, young boys began seminary training at age 13. In some cases, abuse occurred in seminaries. My contemporaries, and those several years younger, were taught in RC seminaries that women were occasions of sin. Imagine! Half the human race was an occasion of sin! Well, perhaps not old ladies.

Rather than having one determining cause, I suspect that, in most cases, more than one cause led priests into abusive behavior. Men who had been abused as children and men predisposed to child abuse very likely made their way into seminaries and through the ordination process, but I believe that mandatory celibacy and the warped attitudes toward sexuality and toward women within the culture of Roman Catholic clergy, especially the hierarchy, had an effect.

Whether celibacy is imposed as a condition of service upon a Roman Catholic man who believes he is called to serve God as a priest, or whether celibacy is imposed upon an LGTB person in another denomination who feels a call to serve God as clergy as a condition for being permitted to serve, mandatory celibacy is just plain wrong.

Understand that I do not in mean to suggest that genuine calls to live celibate lives do not exist. From the early church on, we see examples of saints who lived holy, celibate lives. But the call to celibacy is between God and an individual and is not to be ordered from outside.

I did not come to my opinion lightly. I come with 60 years experience of life in the Roman Catholic Church. I'm not saying that I am right and that those who disagree with me are wrong, however, that the distinguished theologian, Fr Hans Kung, is of a similar opinion, heartens me and makes me think that my reasoning is not entirely off the wall.

H/T to MadPriest at OCICBW for the link to Ruth's article.

Thought For the Day

Celibacy is a vocation, a special call from God. No human can call another human to a life of celibacy. Only God can make that call. Therefore no human has the right to declare to a Christian gay man or lesbian, "You are called to a life of celibacy".

In the absence of any mention of gay or lesbian sex by Our Lord Jesus Christ, who only spoke of faithfulness, one to the other, no human has the right to call gay or lesbian sex sinful.

"It is not good for man (or woman) to be alone."

Anyway, that's how I work it out. Of course, I could be wrong.

(Inspiration for my thought from this post by MadPriest.)