January 28, 2006
I'm sexually active, but only once a week
The following is not a parody.
Q In your last column, you said it wasn't necessary to list hobbies (especially unpopular ones) on a resumé. I'm a 26-year-old, gay male thinking seriously about entering the Catholic priesthood. I'm sexually active, but only once a week, at a Saturday night club with a small group of friends. I think of that as my hobby.
Given the Catholic Church's stance on gays in seminary, do I have to tell them about this? After all, even if I kept this up after ordination, I'd still be as celibate as most other priests.
A Celibacy is like pregnancy: either you are, or you aren't. You aren't, and more to the point aren't prepared to be.
The Catholic Church does not consider its priests "employees;" the relationship, according to doctrine which you'd have to affirm, is more like marriage between the priest and the Church. So, yes, tell them. Whether other priests are celibate is not your concern; "everybody's doing it" is a poor basis for ethical decisions. The fact that the Church's stance on gays in the priesthood is morally wrong is also irrelevant. They've taken their position, you know what it is, so 'fess up and let the pieces fall where they may.
I have another concern, though. Frankly, if you think of sexuality as a "hobby", you're not likely priest material anyway. All the world's major faiths consider sexual intimacy to be an expression of deep, long-lasting commitment and love. Many priests who violate vows of celibacy do so not simply because they are horny, but because they are deeply in love with another person, and consider that love a gift from God. Sex is not a game, and cannot be treated on a resumé or in life, as akin to playing crokinole or raising geraniums.
I think that both the questioner and answerer might have a promising career as writers for America magazine as evidenced by this editorial which is also not a parody.
There is a valid concern that the priesthood should not become exclusively or even predominantly the domain of gay men. In the same way that one would not want to see all or most priests coming from a particular ethnic group, or from a particular region of a country, one hopes that the priesthood reflects the great diversity of Catholics. Similarly, the concern that a man not so identify himself with the “so-called gay culture” that it obscures his fidelity to the church is a prudent one. And the document’s restatement of the need to remain faithful to the promise of celibacy is an important one for any candidate, no matter what his orientation.
Who knew that ethnicity was the same as an objectively disordered inclination? Though I think we can safely say that ethnicity is something we are born with. But I must say I am troubled by the ethnicphobic statement by America magazine.
It would be tragic, however, if this attempt by the Vatican to confront the sexual abuse crisis were the occasion for division within the church or prompted any increase in prejudice against gays and lesbians.
How often do we have to hear this canard about "the document™" which was started years before the abuse crisis was fully known. Though it appears the US bishops were sensitive to this interpretation and wanted the document to be delayed. If only the majority of bishops felt the same sensitivity towards the concerns of more faithful Catholics.
Oh by the way you can vote on America's editorial at the bottom of the editorial. So far 57% agree with it and 43% disagree.
Posted by Jeff Miller at January 28, 2006 11:40 AM | TrackBackClearly, this post is changing those numbers. I just cast my vote, and its 52-48. Keep voting!
Posted by Anon email at January 28, 2006 5:30 PMJeff,
The questioner is of course somewhere off in space, high on some sort of self-indulgent fumes. However the answer, apart from the one jab at the Church, in terms of the morality of it's stance, doesn't seem that far off. They tell the guy that the stance is what it is and you gotta live by it. And they go on to tell him that his behavior is horribly dangerous anyway. Am I missing something
Posted by Seeker email at January 28, 2006 6:02 PMSeeker,
The answerer got things partially right, but he also said things like:
"The fact that the Church's stance on gays in the priesthood is morally wrong is also irrelevant."
Posted by Jeff Miller email at January 28, 2006 6:11 PMJeff,
That's an interesting twist in thinking, i.e., that the "candidate" has an ethical responsibility to honestly disclose his true nature to a "stance" by the Church that "is" immoral, in the considered opinion of the columnist.
I assume that we have a modern Jesuital mind hard at work here. How much muddier can anyone get in their thinking?
And our young man seems to be a prime candidate for a lifelong love affair with himself.
Posted by John Hetman email at January 28, 2006 8:44 PMThough this "Q and A" may have appeared in a newspaper (is this a regular daily paper or one of those "alternative" weeklies? - not that there is so much difference these days) I can assure you that the "questioner" must have intended it as parody! It reads too much like satire to be an honest question, especially the jab about being "as celibate as most other priests."
Posted by Fr. Totton email at January 28, 2006 11:18 PMJust looking at the title of this post brought to mind the idea:
"I'm a faithful Catholic, but only once a week."
Posted by Justice email at January 29, 2006 1:14 AMI just cast my "No" vote..It's 54% No to 46% Yes now!
Posted by Ellsworth email at January 29, 2006 9:16 AMThis "agree" or disagree" question is very much like "Have you stopped beating your wife?"
There is such a hodgepodge of true and falsehood that one can say, "I agree with the first part of the statement, but the conclusion drawn is an abomination."
Which part of each sentence are you being asked to agree with? the premise or the conclusion?
Posted by Marjorie Payne email at January 29, 2006 12:51 PMWell, the columnist did not challenge the assertion that "They're all Doing It", just objected that they Do It because they're In Love.
Posted by Will email at January 29, 2006 1:48 PMThe poll this morning:
Do you agree with this editorial?
(209) Yes (43%)
(276) No (57%)
485 Total Votes
We've swung it back 58-42...
Posted by American Papist email at January 29, 2006 3:14 PMwait a minute... thats more than 100...
I'm a liberal arts major, I admit it.
Posted by American Papist email at January 29, 2006 3:14 PMwait - that IS 100.
I AM a liberal arts major. ouch.
Posted by American Papist email at January 29, 2006 3:15 PMThis pol was obviously set up by a Democrat. We can vote more than once...
The young man isn't even a practicing Catholic, let alone priest material! The columnist needs to have his keester kicked. The whole thing is a unit of the race to the bottom. No pun intended.
Posted by michigancatholic email at January 29, 2006 4:52 PMThis pol was obviously set up by a Democrat. We can vote more than once...
Unlikely, since if it were really set up by a Democrat, only agreeing voters would be able to vote more than once. ;-)
Posted by Publius email at January 29, 2006 8:55 PMThe dead ones vote more than once, like in Chicago.
Posted by michigancatholic email at January 29, 2006 9:15 PMSo what to do? Fire the editor of America?
Posted by Spirit of Vatican II email at January 29, 2006 10:51 PMIt proves my point that the practical effect of the recent spooky Instruction has been to boost the movement to change/develop current church teaching on homosexuality. One sign of this is the sudden rush of Ratzinger apologists to claim that the Church never said the homosexual orientation was objectively disordered, only the desire for homogenital acts. Of course a look at Ratzinger's 1986 and 1992 documents, the Catechism and the Instruction puts paid to that interpretation. But then, Catholicism advances precisely by such "interpretations", by diplomatic feints. That is how we slipped the noose of 1500 years of oppressing religious freedom to present ourselves as champions of religious freedom at Vatican II.
Posted by Spirit of Vatican II email at January 29, 2006 10:57 PMJust checked the poll again (obviously I have too much free time)!
Do you agree with this editorial?
(246) Yes (37%)
(416) No (63%)
662 Total Votes
You've got to be kidding me.
America is turning into two America's. It's just simply amazing at the ignorance of the left. A hobby?
OK.
Not priest material for sure.
Posted by Conde email at January 30, 2006 6:42 PMlooks like the referall is having way too much effect. I get connection refuse in the scripting for the poll. Too many connections, but they know who referred me. Perhaps they only allow one connection per day from the Curt Jester.
Posted by Kale email at January 30, 2006 8:24 PMIs it me? Or did America kill the poll once the vote against them reached the majority?
Or is it just a technical glitch?
Posted by A Holy Fool email at January 30, 2006 9:05 PMLet's see, what would Jesus think? I remember Jesus having a prostitute, a thief, a murderer, and only one theologian in his ministry. I think Jesus would disagree. What do you think?
Posted by Steven email at January 31, 2006 11:23 AMTell it like it is..........
Hey even conservative pro-life Dems like me agree with you here.
Also, let's do something for heterosexual marriage before gay marriage.
It will hinder the divorce rate.
Posted by Jeanne email at January 31, 2006 9:37 PM