More shocking still is that this flies in the face of Pope Benedict XVI's very own words1 (when he was merely Josef Cardinal Ratzinger):
“Although the particular inclination of the [Anglican priest to become Catholic yet retain the right to marry] is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
“[Marriage for a Catholic priest] is not a complementary union, able to transmit [eternal] life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which [the Catholic Church] says is the essence of Christian [sacerdotal] living. This does not mean that [married priests] are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in [married life] they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.”
“The Church teaches that respect for [priests in other traditions who do choose to marry] cannot lead in any way to approval of [such] behavior or to legal recognition [under canon law] of [connubial] unions. Legal recognition [of marriage among the clergy] or placing them on the same level as [the celibate priest] would mean not only the approval of deviant behavior.”
“Allowing [parishioners] to be [put in the pastoral care of priests] living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children [of God], in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development [and that of their Catholic faith and identity].”
“There are absolutely no grounds for considering [priestly marriage] to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan [for the Priesthood]. [The celibate sacerdotal calling] is holy, while sexual acts go against the natural law [of priestly chastity].”
“The various forms of the dissolution of [the priesthood ]today, like free[dom of thought], trial [priests], and going up to pseudo-[ordinations] by people of [other religious traditions], are rather expressions of an anarchic freedom that wrongly passes for true freedom of man [embracing celibacy in a life devoted to God].”
“[T]he church, while deeply respecting the people in question, cannot admit to the seminary and the sacred orders those who practice [their Holy Orders within the bounds of marriage], present deeply rooted [conjugal] tendencies, or support so-called [liberal] culture. Those people find themselves, in fact, in a situation that presents a grave obstacle to a correct relationship with [God]. One cannot ignore the negative consequences that can stem from the ordination of people with deeply-rooted [Protestant] tendencies.”
1Actually,those words within brackets above not Ratzinger's but my own. I have made a few key substitutions to accentuate the hypocrisy of the Catholic Church under the leadership of the present pontiff. I trust I have not done any more violence to the Pope's thinking than He Himself already has.
Posts
8 comments:
Dood. You Catholics have problems with marriage policies. Try Mormons instead, where marriage policies are nothing but sweet sailing utterly without controversy or angst.
Sorry, I don't think this analogy works. Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuality is simply different than theology regarding clerical celibacy. Celibacy for priests is defined as a "discipline" not a "doctrine," given the fact that there have been married popes, bishops and priests in the early history of the church. The issues just aren't equivalent. (That's not to say that I agree with the Church's position.)
I thought for Mormons that discipline was doctrine! :)
You don't think homosexuality and clerical celibacy are related? The requirement of the second has yielded a preponderance of the first in the Catholic priesthood. As in, a majority of Catholic priests are homosexual. That is my firm belief. The paradox of preferentially hiring homosexuals and then anathematizing homosexuality has yielded (and sheltered!) institutional paraphilia. If homosexuality is a moral evil, then celibacy is entrapment.
Actually, this post had a much more modest intention. I was merely ridiculing (in that Mad magazine fill-in-the-blank sort of way) the dessicated writing style of someone unconsciously emulating Pontius Pilate: a mixture of understanding, pity, condemnation, incredulity, disdain, and self-absolution, all dressed up in the fancy rhetoric that suggests regret for the necessity of writing it.
The exercise was all too easy to do, which tells me that the Pope is not as good a speechwriter as he thinks.
Catholicism is the fusion of creed and culture, each side serving the other. It is impossible to separate the effect -- or intent -- of each component. When Catholics are told that something is true, they do not run to the Bible to verify, nor do they sift the Pope's words for truth. They think (but unlike Baptists do not write on their cars) "What would Jesus do?".
Whatever else Jesus might do, I know he would not express it with the words "more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder."
Such polemics do not persuade. Why does he feel the need to dress up calumny in fancy words? The take-away from his diatribe is clear enough to anyone with a doctorate in Latin, Canon Law, and psychiatry:
When you were born, God made a mistake.
The truth that set me free.
I thought for Mormons that discipline was doctrine! :)
That is one of the interesting things, is that discipline is not doctrine, though often treated as if it were ...
As in, a majority of Catholic priests are homosexual.
Interesting to compare numbers between American Catholics and other communities.
Stephen,
I am ashamed of my ethnocentrism.
In my assertion above, I meant to include only native-born U.S. Catholic priests.
Let me know if you find any hard numbers on the subject!
The comments of Carinal Ratzinger reminded me to read again what the Lord said to the young boy, Joseph Smith, as recorded in the PGP JS 2:18-19. It appears to me to be directly relevant.
NedA,
I am not quite sure of your citation. Are you referring to PGP JS-H 1:18-19?
NedA,
Classy.
Post a Comment