Friday, July 23, 2010

Who Does the Rome Gay Priest Scandal Really Hurt?

I guess this will hit the American shores soon. A little trouble is brewing in Rome. I am a little underwhelmed by this scandal. Shocking they found three gay priest and found they were having sex!! It is the pictures and the lurid details that give it the yuck factor.

The best piece and take on this can be seen at Politics Daily. See Rome's Gay Priest Scandal Makes Everyone Look Bad

Now I have seen this publication called a mainstream conservative weekly. You can go to the link and read the story and see the lurid pictures. (You can use google translate to get it in English). I am not linking it because for a mainstream publication it has a nice bit of nudity of women so gosh I don't want to offend anyone. But the link is there in the above linked piece..

First it makes journalists look bad. As he says:
Secretly filming priests -- or anyone -- in their private lives, and especially while having sex with a "honey pot" apparently brought along for the purposes of entrapment, is so far beyond the pale of journalistic standards that it makes Andrew Breitbart look like Walter Cronkite.

Indeed.

Of course it hurts the Church of Christ needless to say..

But as he points out does it not hurt other people. That is gay Priests and Catholic ins general that have some level of Same Sex attraction.

? We can divide that group into two categories. Those Priests laity that have some level of Same sex attraction but are chaste and then those that want to go HEY VATICAN homosexual acts are ok get with the times. Quit being homophobes.

So if a someone that is trying to take a stance that the Catholic Church should recognize homosexual conduct should be recognized as Holy well does this piece help? It seems to make the case for what Benedict has been doing and demanding as formations in Seminaries.

Panorama offered a fig leaf by saying that it would not reveal the priests' names or any other details about them, but that may not be protection enough for the men.

In fact, the Diocese of Rome, which is headed by the Bishop of Rome, a.k.a. Pope Benedict XVI, is undertaking an investigation to uncover the identity of the clerics and says it will "rigorously prosecute" anyone else who has engaged in conduct "unworthy of priestly life," which pretty much means gay priests.

Indeed, the response by church officials in Rome is another disturbing element of the sordid tale, though it is hardly a surprise given the Vatican's ham-handed media strategy during the past months of new sexual abuse revelations -- reactions that have more often than not worsened the scandal and the image of the church and the pope.

After the Panorama expose' was published, officials of the Vicariate of Rome (churchmen who oversee operations of the diocese for the pope, who is usually busy tending his global flock) issued a statement calling on priests like those cited in the magazine article to come out of the closet and leave the priesthood.

Priests who are living "a double life," said a statement from the Vicar of Rome, "have not understood what the Catholic priesthood is and should not have become priests" in the first place.

"Consistency demands that they be discovered. We do not wish them ill but we cannot accept that because of their behavior the honor of all the other priests is dragged through the mud."

Under Pope Benedict, the Vatican has taken strong measures to try to weed out gay men from the priesthood, whether they are sexually active or not. Part of this is in response to the sexual abuse scandal, which many in the Vatican -- and the rest of the hierarchy -- believe is due to the behavior of homosexual priests.

Now let me put that statement put out by the Diocese of Rome translated in English in full .

The magazine Panorama, in its issue of July 23, out in newsstands today, has a long article entitled 'Le notti brave dei preti gay' (Happy night of gay priests), in which the writer claims to have spent some time with gay priests and recorded their activities with a hidden camera.

The purpose of the article is obvious: to create scandal, to defame all priests on the basis of a statement by one priest who claims that 98 percent of all the priests he knows are homosexual, and ultimately, to discredit the Church.

In the process, it purports to put pressure on the part of the Church that it calls 'intransigent, and persists in not looking at the reality' of homosexual priests.

The events narrated in the article can only bring pain and concern to the ecclesial community of Rome which knows its own priests - those who do not live a double life but 'one life only', which is happy and joyful, consistent with their vocation, dedicated to God and the service of their fellowmen, committed to live the Gospel and bear witness to it as a model of morality for everyone.

There are more than 1,300 of them in 336 parishes, and in oratories, multiple works of charity, various institutes of consecrated life and in other ecclesial organizations working in the universities, in the world of culture, in hospitals and on the frontiers of poverty and human degradation - not only in our city but in far lands and in difficult situations.

Those who really know the Church of Rome - where hundreds of priests from all parts of the world also live as students - know that the overwhelming majority do not in any way live a 'double life'. Few priests do not understand what it means to be a Catholic priest; and fewer still those who have decided that they should not have been priests at all.

They know that nothing forces them to remain priests. Consistency requires those who have had a change of heart to come forward. We wish them no ill, but at the same time, we cannot accept that their behavior results in smearing the honor of all other priests.

In the face of this, we adhere with conviction to what the Holy Father, Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome, has repeated often in the past months: 'the sins of priests' call on all of us to a conversion of the heart and of our life, to be vigilant and not to "poison Christian faith and life, undermine the integrity of the Church, weaken its capacity for preaching and witness, and besmirch the beauty of her face".

The Vicariate of Rome is committed to pursue strictly, following the norms of the Church, all behavior that is unworthy of the priestly life.


Now lets be clear here. The Church is not on a witch hunt as to Priesst that have some level of same sex attractions. The Church is focused on behavior!!! not orientations.

Even under the new guidelines of Seminary formation the Church is sophisticated enough to realize there is are differences in levels of same sex attractions a person might have and then DEEP SEATED same sex attractions that might present a problem in the future.

In other words the Church realizes that is is tad simplistic to put everyone into categories of Straight and Gay and label a person just by certain levels of attractions they might have. In other words the Church does not view one same sex encounter some guy had in youth with a friend as making someone "gay".

So when we are talking double lives the Church is talking about Priests described in this article or are in regular unchaste relationships. I am afraid that will get lost.

However I have to think if you are on the side of the argument that the Catholic Church should legitimize Same Sex sexual acts and relationships this article will not help in the end.

5 comments:

Mary Ellen/Nunly said...

Any priest, gay or straight, who break their vow of celibacy, should be disciplined. If they continue to ignore their superiors on that issue, they should be asked...no...forced to leave the priesthood.

This isn't any different than a married person breaking their marriage vows and having adulterous affairs. These priests are supposed to be married to God and their vow of celibacy is exactly as a lay person's vow of marriage.

This is exactly what Pope Benedict XVI was saying about battling the sins within our Church. You have to cut out the cancer before it spreads.

I have no problem with a gay man becoming a priest, but he must truly accept the teachings of our faith and fulfill his duties as a priest with honor and respect....just as any man or woman entering into the Sacrament of Matrimony.

Our Church needs prayer...big time, and so does Pope Benedict.

Realist said...

Mary Ellen/Nunly, I am not a Roman Catholic, and my opinion should not matter to you very much. But when you say that a Priest who breaks his vow of celibacy should be disciplined, and only if they continue to ignore their superiors on htat issue should they be removed as Priests, this seems very wishy-washy to me. If the Roman Catholic Church expects to have any credibility on the issue of celibacy, then they should realize that when a vow of celibacy is broken, then it can not then be unbroken. Every person is celibate until the first time they have sexual contact with another person, and then they are no longer celibate, and they will never be celibate again. You can't un-scramble eggs, and there are plenty of other things that just can't ever be un-done. Neither my wife, nor myself have ever touched another person in a sexual manner, and we place the utmost value on chastity. It is a shame that, these days, so few people understand the value of sexual purity. The peace of mind in knowing that I have never been exposed to any STD is just one element of it. But while chastity is of great value, the Roman Catholic idea of celibacy is unnatural, inhuman, and just a big lie to boot. When you say that you are only going to allow people who take a vow that they will never have sex to be the leaders of your church, then you are just guaranteeing that your church leadership will be a bunch of liars. This magazine article is not any big news. When they put a young attractive willing homosexual with three Priests and took pictures of what happened, it is of the same news value as if they found a pussycat in heat, and put her in the backyard with three tomcats and took pictures of what happened. You have to be brainwashed from early childhood by these Priests to be so gullible to believe that they are really celibate.
Now please don't let it hurt your feelings that I say these things. But it is the honest opinion of a non-Catholic, an outsider.

Andy said...

"Every person is celibate until the first time they have sexual contact with another person, and then they are no longer celibate, and they will never be celibate again."

I think you are confusing celibacy and virginity. Even porn stars can become celibate, though they can never again be virgins.

Also, the rule against clerical marriage is not hard or fast and may one day be changed, in fact some rites within Catholicism already allow married men to be priests. Even the Latin Rite allows certain married men to be priests (generally converting Anglicans).

The rule of celibacy in the priesthood is at least 1700 years old. Considering Christianity is not yet 2000 years old, that is a pretty large chunk of the whole. There is also evidence it was prevalent prior to its formal implementation. You may remember Paul was unmarried and said in 1 Corinthians that "I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife."

You may also remember Jesus saying in Matthew "Some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

Realist said...

Andy, I do get carried away in making comments on the internet, since I like to be provocative, and I am not really against single people at all. Like it says in the Scripture that you quote, it is good to be single, and it is just as honorable to be single and chaste, as it is to be married and chaste.
But your definition of celibacy seems to be that they are "celibate" except when they are having sex, and when they stop having sex, then they are "celibate" again. Now that is a pretty easy standard to meet. I know that even a porn actor can become chaste, and I applaud them if they do so, but that would not make them "celibate".
The big difference between virginity and celibacy is that virginity is in the Bible, and it is a valid status of a young person whose family has brought them up well, taught them to be chaste, and kept them chaperoned while they are preparing for marriage. On the other hand, celibacy is a fake, phoney, false doctrine of the Apostate Orthodox false religion that passes itself as Christianity.
I am very old-fashioned and I think the term should only refer to a female whose hymen is intact. I would never refer to a male as a "virgin", and if one must say any such thing about an older woman, she should be called a spinster. The word "virgin" means a young chaste unmarried woman.
I am sorry that in my opposition to the false doctrine of so-called "celibacy" that I seemed to devalue single people. The Lord, Jesus Christ, Himself said that marriage is not for everybody, and Paul, the Apostle, taught us that it is good for a minister who has a special gift of being able to contain his sexuality to remain single, and devote himself more fully to the Gospel than a married minister.
The vast majority of Christians should take one spouse to avoid fornication, but just as marriage is honorable for all if the marriage bed remains undefiled, it is also honorable to be single if the single person remains chaste and keeps his bed undefiled.

Andy said...

Realist,

I'm not trying to be overly critical, but I think you are misusing terms.

"virgin" means a person has never had sex

"celibacy" means a person avoids sex for moral, health or other reasons (not necessarily religious)

"chaste" means to act sexually appropriate. Chaste could be synonymous with celibate or virgin if that person is unmarried, but it also refers to people acting appropriately within a marriage (eg avoiding adultery, etc)

These words have these definitions and usages outside the religious context.

Also, I realize you are trying to be provocative and that I am probably too easily baited. Such as you referring to the "Apostate Orthodox false religion". Given the nature of this site, I guess you are referring to Catholicism, but the words you use are confusing. I'm sure you know "apostate" means someone who fell away from a particular religion, but then you use "Orthodox" which literally means "conforming to established doctrine especially in religion." It's like saying "that is the darkest light I have ever seen" or "that paint is the whitest black color." It is a nonsense phrase, by its definition.

I'm not exactly sure what your goal is by posting here, but I'm not sure using those terms is helpful.