The headline Vatican Renews Ban On Gay Priests makes said ban sound a bit like a library book. It also doesn't make a great deal of sense. Some bishop or other was trying to explain it on "The Today Programme". You see, the Catholic Church has this rule that priests must take a vow of celibacy, regardless of their orientation. But the argument goes that homosexuals cannot be priests because they will feel sexually tempted. Now to me that implies that heterosexual priests are never sexually tempted, which is clearly rubbish. So taken to its logical conclusions, the Church should put into place a rule saying that all priests should be asexual, to ensure that they aren't distracted by sex. Oh, and here's another great argument: "Such persons in fact find themselves in a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship with men and women". Hmm. Because Catholic priests are noted for their sympathetic and understanding attitude towards women. Aren't they?
I spent my weekend trawling various London toy departments with an 11-month-old baby who is at that stage of babydom where every now and then he gets overcome wiht excitement and flaps his arms up and down with a huge grin on his face. Most interesting was Harrods, which I had to queue for. Only in harrods could you buy, for a mere £20, a toy featuring a 10" doll in jodhpurs and a couple of plastic fences in a box proclaiming "My First Gymkhana Set".
Such pastimes are an indicator of quite how non-adventurous my life has become (actually, I would argue that fighting your way past 300 pushchairs in Hamley's actually is quite adventurous, but that aside...) As if to make the point, I went to see the new Harry Potter on Monday. I'm sure there are more interesting ways to spend an evening. We have a game we play now where we spot all the Discworld references and try to figure out whether it is down to outright plagiarism or a lack of originality. It was redeemed, however, by its depiction of the school ball, which I can assure you was accurate, and brought back fond memories of sitting forlornly at the side of the hall where the three blokes in whom you are secretly interested canoodle with other people.
I spent my weekend trawling various London toy departments with an 11-month-old baby who is at that stage of babydom where every now and then he gets overcome wiht excitement and flaps his arms up and down with a huge grin on his face. Most interesting was Harrods, which I had to queue for. Only in harrods could you buy, for a mere £20, a toy featuring a 10" doll in jodhpurs and a couple of plastic fences in a box proclaiming "My First Gymkhana Set".
Such pastimes are an indicator of quite how non-adventurous my life has become (actually, I would argue that fighting your way past 300 pushchairs in Hamley's actually is quite adventurous, but that aside...) As if to make the point, I went to see the new Harry Potter on Monday. I'm sure there are more interesting ways to spend an evening. We have a game we play now where we spot all the Discworld references and try to figure out whether it is down to outright plagiarism or a lack of originality. It was redeemed, however, by its depiction of the school ball, which I can assure you was accurate, and brought back fond memories of sitting forlornly at the side of the hall where the three blokes in whom you are secretly interested canoodle with other people.
posted by RLS at 9:20 am
19 Comments:
Asexual priests? Sounds like a job for David Lundie...!
He's not Catholic. Mind you, the Catholic Church probably wouldn't mind. As long as he isn't gay...
Asexual, but they would then be sexually distracted by themselves, and while most pulpits probably high enough, I'm not sure I'd be taking Communion too frequently...
Could we not just do away with priests and have computers, they could dispense sermons at the push of a button, and with voice recognition could shoot out wafers when they heard, "The Body and Blood of Christ" or whatever you say at Communion... no probs, and then they wouldn't be shagging the choir boys as much either... they might go down on the rector though...
How the heck is this ban supposed to work? Many gay men become Catholic priests because they are either in denial or seeking to suppress their tendencies - they're hardly going to admit and seek to spend another three years overcoming them are they?
Well the Catholic Church has argued that it would be very dishonest of them to hide it, but my argument goes like this: they probably have been honest about it... in Confession! And a priest who hears a confession isn't allowed under any circumstances to pass it on. So things will carry on as they are...lots of gay men in the priesthood and a homophobic church.
Perhaps it ought to be pointed out that there actually isn't any ban on 'Gay' priests at all!
'Practising Gay' priests (that is, Priests who engage in homosexual lifestyles), yes.
Priests who act in ways that are considered inappropriate (including deliberately acting like a 'queen'), yes.
Men who happen to be Gay, no.
The ban is on those who have attitudes or lifestyles that are contrary to Catholic doctrine.
So, you might think it somewhat reasonable for the Catholic Church to expect its adherents, and its prietss in particular perhaps, to, oh, I don't know, actually adhere to Catholicism?
Especially given the apparently excellent pastoral care offered to Gay people, you say 'Homophobic church'? Come on...
Debate's fine, but let's have one based on the facts, eh?
Pax tecum,
The Cavalier
BTW, the BBC News site says, "The chairman of a Roman Catholic evangelical group in Nigeria, Godwin Ukachi, welcomed the publication as overdue."
"Roman Catholic evangelical"? Someone should ask the BBC whether they can spell 'oxymoron'?
"Roman Catholic evangelistic group", possibly?
Pax tecum,
The Cavalier
Hmm, didn't think it'd be long before that turned up.
Though I agree in one sense - why any gay man would want ANYTHING to do with the church or a God like that, I can't really understand. Be an atheist and thus don't be made to feel shit about yourself - that's what I say.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I don't know: I'm not sure that a lack of self-esteem is what principally occupies those in Hell!
If they did suffer from that affliction, they certainly find it's the least of their problems...
:)
All predicated on the assumption of course, that Gay Catholics feel rubbish about themselves because they're Gay, which from what I have seen is not necessarily the case at all.
Of course, we should ALL feel rubbish about ourselves to the extent that we are ALL sinful human beings, so I don't really see the problem. We are sinful, but if we accept Christ He washes our sins away!
And that's very cool. And it gives you rather higher self-esteem then simply saying "Well, I'm the way I am, so f*** off!"
That's also one of the great things about Christianity: it's 'Sinners Not-So-Anonymous'! Or, as we say at the beginning of every Sunday Mass - "I confess to Almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault. In my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do. And I ask Blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and Saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God".
Amen!
Pax tecum,
The Cavalier
Did not say people feel rubbish about themselves cause they are gay, ta very much. Nor "I am the way I am, so fuck off". Personally I'm more of a "Love me for what I am" kinda girl, and hell, I'm bound to love you too.
Good to know I can live a life of sin as long as I'm accepting Jesus whilst I'm doing it - yeehaw!! Come on over here, Jesus! Give us a kiss you groovy dude!
PS Sorry px - I shall comment no more here - I don't want to turn your comments into a bitch-fest again!!
"Good to know I can live a life of sin as long as I'm accepting Jesus whilst I'm doing it"
Hm. Antinomianism, eh?
Yes, should have explicated: "We are sinful, but if we accept Christ [that is, if we repent of our sins, accept His forgiveness, and persevere to follow Christ's teachings, including resolving not to sin anymore] He washes our sins away!
Here then, endeth the lesson - though I hope it wasn't entering into bitch-fest territory! Hey, this is the internet, that's what it's for!
Well, that and porn, but hopefully, this blog hasn't degenerated to that level just yet... :)
Pax tecum,
The Cavalier
(P.S. Hi Polly, how are you!)
Hi Peter,
I'm very well, thanks. You?
"Well, that and porn, but hopefully, this blog hasn't degenerated to that level just yet... :)"
Just yet?? Trust me, I'm not going to degenerate into porn! :-)
"Perhaps it ought to be pointed out that there actually isn't any ban on 'Gay' priests at all!
'Practising Gay' priests (that is, Priests who engage in homosexual lifestyles), yes."
Actually, the impression I got from what I read (and that doesn't mean it was the right one) was that there was in fact a ban (actually ban is too strong a word, but you get the idea) on gay priests now - that was the whole point of the document. Practising gays goes without saying: you shouldn't be "practising" whatever your sexuality! As I understand it, and as it was explained on the Today Programme, the church views homosexuality itself as a disorder, and as such someone who is homosexual is unable to become a priest as this disorder may affect their ability to interact with others in an appropriate way etc. It is not just about actual sexual activity: they have even encompassed a section that advises that if someone had been through a "transitory" phase where they thought they might be gay could apply to the priesthood provided this had taken place more than three years before.
I do think that some areas of the church are homophobic in the literal sense, that is that they are afraid of homosexuality because they don't understand it and see it as alien because it is not in line with what they (we?) regard as natural (doesn't result in childbirth etc) and I think as a result the church can come across as being homophobic in the currently understood sense of being unwelcoming to gay people.
As for Antinomianism, that always made me laugh :-)
Rachel:
"PS Sorry px - I shall comment no more here - I don't want to turn your comments into a bitch-fest again!!"
Comment as often as you like, my dear :-)
Peter said: "Yes, should have explicated: "We are sinful, but if we accept Christ [that is, if we repent of our sins, accept His forgiveness, and persevere to follow Christ's teachings, including resolving not to sin anymore] He washes our sins away!"
So, Christ's forgiveness of us is conditional on our doing all of this, is it? So, we "earn" our forgiveness, do we?
A theological flaw there somewhere, perhaps...
Maybe a theologian will come along and explain it simply for you.
Hi Polly!
“Hi Peter, I'm very well, thanks. You?”
Very well thank you! Busy, and with lots of essays to write!
"‘Well, that and porn, but hopefully, this blog hasn't degenerated to that level just yet... :)’ Just yet?? Trust me, I'm not going to degenerate into porn! :-)”
Glad to read it! :)
"‘Perhaps it ought to be pointed out that there actually isn't any ban on 'Gay' priests at all! 'Practising Gay' priests (that is, Priests who engage in homosexual lifestyles), yes.’ Actually, the impression I got from what I read (and that doesn't mean it was the right one) was that there was in fact a ban (actually ban is too strong a word, but you get the idea) on gay priests now - that was the whole point of the document.”
Well, the actual report itself only bars ordination to those with what is describes as “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” That would tend to suggest then, that it is not “all Gay Priests per se”, but those who have tendencies to act in a way that expresses their sexuality. I would say that is fair, as it doesn’t exclude men who happen to be Gay, but who have their sexuality very well under control, who have those feelings of attraction but are just generally very un-driven in that way (the ‘natural bachelor’ variety) or are bisexual.
“Practising gays goes without saying: you shouldn't be "practising" whatever your sexuality!”
Indeed.
“As I understand it, and as it was explained on the Today Programme, the church views homosexuality itself as a disorder, and as such someone who is homosexual is unable to become a priest as this disorder may affect their ability to interact with others in an appropriate way etc.”
This is where we get into fuzzy territory, but I think the language is precise enough to tell us about the Church’s position. If the Church had wanted to ban Gay priests outright, then surely they would not have added the term “deep seated” to homosexual tendencies, but just said “homosexual tendencies”. This, after all, would have been clear and explicit in signifying that position.
However, if you say that some people have “deep seated” Gay tendencies, doesn’t that rather suggest that you believe there are others with Gay tendencies that are NOT deep seated? If so, then it would suggest further that not all Gay men are excluded from the Priesthood, just those with such strong tendencies in that area, that it would make their ordination inappropriate. That qualifying adverb in my mind makes the essential difference between a blanket ban on all Gay men becoming priests, and a ban on those men becoming Priests whose sexuality would cause problems in their Priestly life.
“It is not just about actual sexual activity: they have even encompassed a section that advises that if someone had been through a "transitory" phase where they thought they might be gay could apply to the priesthood provided this had taken place more than three years before.”
I think I’d have to read the entire document first (how interesting that would be… zzz). However, that just suggests to me that an evaluation of someone’s tendencies in that direction, would only have to occur if they thought that that was a ‘disorder’ that the person was still suffering from, rather than something they had just experienced ever so briefly years before (à la Michael Portillo).
”I do think that some areas of the church are homophobic in the literal sense, that is that they are afraid of homosexuality because they don't understand it and see it as alien because it is not in line with what they (we?) regard as natural (doesn't result in childbirth etc)…”
Well, I do agree with you that there are some homophobes around, but I have to say that I’ve never met them. Actually I’ve never even met homophobic Evangelicals, despite the fact that they are (though still very much a tiny minority) apparently more notable and obvious – and I’ve been to St. Helen’s, Bishopsgate, which is almost about as fundamentalist as you can get in civilised London!
I think that homophobia is less to do with fear (I cannot think how anyone could actively fear a minority that is so stereotyped as being feminine in all the ‘frailty thy name is woman’ ways!) and more to do with moral and general ignorance that lead to feelings of disgust and moral opprobrium. Real homophobes are rarely so intelligent, or educated, as to actually have a good intellectual reason for their homophobia. Then again, since I’ve never met a homophobe, but only seen them on T.V., and in America, perhaps I’ve just yet to meet an intelligent specimen of that type…?
“…and I think as a result the church can come across as being homophobic in the currently understood sense of being unwelcoming to gay people.”
I think that that is a perception of the Church caused more by liberal secularist demonology than by any real tendency in the Church’s teachings or actions. If I had experienced homophobic attitudes or opinions in other Catholics, or any Catholic Priests, or in any Church documents or doctrines, then I might agree, but I haven’t! So I can only go by what the Church actually teaches (which is not in anyway homophobic), and my own experience of other Catholics.
”As for Antinomianism, that always made me laugh :-)”
Yes, humour helps when you study some theology… :)
Glad to see you’re doing well! We were praying at King’s for the healing of your, er, ‘ami l’homme’! How is he?
All my love, and Grace and peace be with you always,
Peter
X + :)
Anonymous,
“Peter said: ‘Yes, should have explicated: "We are sinful, but if we accept Christ [that is, if we repent of our sins, accept His forgiveness, and persevere to follow Christ's teachings, including resolving not to sin anymore] He washes our sins away!’ So, Christ's forgiveness of us is conditional on our doing all of this, is it? So, we "earn" our forgiveness, do we? A theological flaw there somewhere, perhaps... Maybe a theologian will come along and explain it simply for you.”
Who said anything about ‘earning our forgiveness’?
Well, since you are obviously so theologically knowledgeable, you probably know then that to ‘earn your forgiveness’ would mean, presumably, to ‘merit’ it in some way. Now to merit something means to have “recompense owed” to you for having done something ‘meritorious’.
That is, it puts an obligation on the other party (in this case, God) to pay for services rendered or for doing something that makes that recompense a necessary reward for your actions. Hence, if we, underneath our own natural human efforts, come to faith, apart from the Grace of God, then that is ‘earning your salvation’.
But that is not what I was suggesting at all. Indeed, I fail to see why saying (as I did) that there is a process, that is, there are pre-conditions, to being saved – that salvation is conditional on certain things happening – indicates that we earn our forgiveness in any way. After all:
It is generally accepted by most Christians that you must have faith in order to be saved: that is, you must believe in Christ’s teachings, repent of your sins, and through the Grace of God maintain a “faith that works through love” (Galatians 5:6), and I said that. Given that coming to faith is through the (‘Prevenient’) Grace of God, having faith is through the (‘Sanctifying’) Grace of God, and maintaining it is through the (‘Actual’) Grace of God, Is having faith meritorious?
Well, no, clearly not.
It is also assumed by Catholics, of which I am one, that Baptism is necessary to be saved (1 Peter 3:20-21, John 3:5, Titus 3:5, Mark 16:16), either through the Sacrament of Baptism, or if that is rendered impossible for whatever reason, then ‘Baptism of desire’. Given that only those who have already come to faith (or children who will be brought up in the faith), through the Grace of God, are the only people who are going to be Baptised, and since Baptism only efficaciously ensures salvation to those who come to, or have, a saving faith in Christ (see above), is being Baptised a meritorious work?
Of course not.
It is also finally assumed, by everyone except Calvinists, that salvation is conditional on persevering until the end in the same faith (Matthew 10:22) we discussed above. Since one only perseveres due to the Grace if God, is perseverance a meritorious work?
Nope again.
So, assuming that was ‘simple’ enough for you, may I ask why you assume I hold a Pelagian/Semi-Pelagian soteriological position?
Pax tecum,
The Cavalier
"Glad to see you’re doing well! We were praying at King’s for the healing of your, er, ‘ami l’homme’! How is he?"
Thank you very much - he's much better, thanks. Lost a couple of teeth and permanently scarred but otherwise fine. :-)
"Well, the actual report itself only bars ordination to those with what is describes as “deep-seated homosexual tendencies” "
Out of interest, how are they defining this, and where are they drawing the line between deep seated tendancies and mild tendancies?
"Then again, since I’ve never met a homophobe, but only seen them on T.V., and in America, perhaps I’ve just yet to meet an intelligent specimen of that type…?"
Yes, they probably don't represent a good cross-section! I haven't met many Christians I would go so far as to say were homophobic. I've met some who, like you say, are probably just ignorant, both about what the Bible says (and the Church, but then, they were not Catholics) and about homosexuality. I've only come across a few who are just plain scary. A couple wrote to me after I had a letter in The Times supporting Rowan Williams. A few people wrote but most were sensible. A couple were just nutty. Christian Voice are also a bit scary: they're in the "New Orleans got the hurricane because gay people live there" brigade. The only homophobic Catholic I've met is a guy who said that if his son was gay he would hope that he shot himself. He claimed that I didn't understand because I wasn't Catholic. I have to admit I had fun with him telling him that I didn't believe that the world's most pro-life Church would take the view that homosexuals would shoot themselves. Again, though, I wouldn't say he is the "norm"!
Talk soon
Lots of love
xx
take a look at our video blog -
[url=http://trailfire.com/allegra] allegra versace [/url]
http://trailfire.com/allegra
[url=http://trailfire.com/allegra] goodyear allegra [/url]
[url=http://viagranowdirect.com/#gnprh]buy viagra online[/url] - viagra 150 mg , http://viagranowdirect.com/#erjsm viagra 100 mg
Post a Comment
<< Home