COLLEGEVILLE, Minn. – A priest at St. John’s University is resigning from his leadership position in response to newly clarified restrictions against admitting homosexuals into the Catholic priesthood.
The Rev. Bob Pierson, in an e-mail Wednesday to administrators and students at St. John’s and nearby College of St. Benedict, said, "Because I can no longer honestly represent, explain and defend the church’s teaching on homosexuality, I feel I must resign." Pierson said he would resign effective Jan. 15.
Pope Benedict XVI is running the most brilliant inquisition in Church history. No need for trials, inquiries, or other messy procedures. Those who are at odds with Church teaching are just resigning. They are just vanishing one by one on their own cognizance. Nobody expects the vanish inquisition.
Being that this case seems to be one more as part of a trend I just can’t help wondering just what in the world the new Vatican document has changed in the slightest? The constant teaching of the Church and every magisterial document on the subject saying the same thing just how did a document affecting seminaries become the final straw?
Pierson, the Chaplain and Director of Campus Ministry, said in the e-mail that he is gay and celibate. He said there were several elements in the Vatican document that he did not accept as true, including the assertion that homosexuals are "objectively disordered."
"I am not an infallible person, but I cannot remain silent about my disagreement in conscience with this document, or the church’s teaching on homosexuality," the priest said. [Source]
Why is it that they always have to mischaracterized Church teaching by not stating that it is homosexual acts which are gravely disordered? If in conscience you can’t accept Church teaching then why misquote them instead of correctly stating exactly what you disagree with? Please send some prayers the way of the confused priest.
31 comments
“Nobody expects the vanish inquisition.”
How do you think of this stuff? That’s a riot.
If in conscience you can’t accept Church teaching then why misquote them instead of correctly stating exactly what you disagree with?
I don’t think they want to be seen as dissenting from Doctrine and then they would expose the fact they want to change it. Just my opinion of course, and would not apply to all.
I think that you are splitting words a bit here; although the catechism only uses the term ‘objectively disordered’ to describe homosexuality (#2358), and acts themselves as gravely depraved (#2357), it is hard to see how an orientation that leads one to desire such acts is would not also be ‘gravely disordered’.
Of course, the central difference is that an individual nature, although deeply disordered, is not itself sinful (although the disorder can, in many cases, be further disordered and tarnished by sin), whereas acting in accord with such a nature is necessarily gravely sinful.
The main problem that I have with the priest is that he has KNOWN, for many years, what the teachings of the Church are on this subject, and (at least so it seems) has dishonestly tried to avoid previous teachings on sexuality, which are obviously rooted in both Tradition and Scripture. And so to say he can ‘no longer’ honestly present the views of the Church is self-serving falsehood.
If he’s celibate, he shouldn’t have a problem with the teachings. If he’s just celibate because he hasn’t had a temptation recently or he’s meeting his desires in other ways, then the Church teaching is “a problem”.
“I certainly didn’t expect that very funny “vanish inquisition” line! It’s a tribute to your ruthless efficiency, and your almost fanatical devotion to the pope. I fear I will be surprised again sometime soon…
Now, about this Pierson guy. I suppose he has to give a month’s notice, but does that mean he will continue to honestly MISrepresent, NOT explain, and NOT defend the Church’s teachings in the meantime?
“Lord give me the courage to resign. But not yet!”
I think the last line is what I needed to hear. Remember to pray for these men. I tend to have a “don’t let the door hit you” attitude. I agree that it is better to have a few good priests than many bad ones, but I hope that he eventually overcomes the disorder and embraces the church again.
He has been saying mass for a Dignity chapter, so there is no question that he has to leave; for promoting the “gay lifestyle” is a clear impediment to assent to Church teaching, and that is what Dignity seeks to do.
A side note:
Being in formation, I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing all the negative things about this document and the horror it is creating in so many lives. What about the lives of countless teenage boys who were abused at the hands of homosexual priest-predators. They were homosexual; straight men do not go after 16 year old boys. So shut your cakehole and deal with the fact that things need to be cleaned up in order for the Gospel of Jesus Christ to be preach in all its glory!
“…shut your cakehole…”
Not to mention all the other holes as well.
What’s changed is that people now believe that somebody intends to enforce the church’s teaching. Nobody minded when the church “officially” taught something but didn’t do anything about it.
If he’s celibate, he shouldn’t have a problem with the teachings
The question is, “What exactly does he mean by celibate?” If he means the original and most formal definition of being unmarried, then he’s said nothing remotely useful since he obviously has no desire to marry in a way that’s recognized by the state of Minnesota. Even in the more popular sense of “not having sex with anyone ever,” I’ve heard of gay priests taking the Clintonian position that non-vaginal acts don’t count.
Best line of the year…
By the Curt Jester: “Nobody expects the vanish inquisition.” St. John’s priest resigns post over Vatican document COLLEGEVILLE, Minn. – A priest at St. John’s University is resigning from his leadership position in response to newly clarified restricti…
Publius, what can I say? I’ve been dealing with high school students all day who focus on minutiae or semantics in order to get out of their responsibility; e.g., “You said the test was on Thursday. You didn’t say THIS Thursday. Maybe you meant the Thursday after Christmas break.” So I guess my uncharitable response is that priests who think sodomy, “watersports”, etc. don’t count as fornication are probably too thick to be fully-functioning adults, let alone responsible priests. They might not be able to boil water without CLEAR instructions or get off an escalator without assistance. Or perhaps they were intelligent at one point, but the time and mental exertion that they expended on making “loopholes” has burned out those grey cells (not to mention the last of their integrity).
What has changed is that it’s become obvious that B16 is not going to let the current situation continue to slide into silent decadence. The “gay” activists lost this battle and probably the war when Ratzinger was elected. If the seminaries are cleaned up, expect the homosexual comfort zone within the church to decrease in size and scope steadily and rapidly. And don’t expect any more bishop Ryans.
I’m still waiting for my bishop (Matthew Clark of good old Rochester, NY) and his “pink army” of gay priests to resign. Hopefully this is representative of a larger trend!
With respect, I believe it is your characterization of church teaching which is mistaken.
From the vatican.va website:
“Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial.”
Those poor men — how that statement must have hurt them.
Imagine if someone told you that your heterosexual tendencies were disordered — not the acts! — but the tendencies. Can you change your tendencies?
This is so sad. Celibate is celibate.
“Those poor men — how that statement must have hurt them.
Imagine if someone told you that your heterosexual tendencies were disordered — not the acts! — but the tendencies. Can you change your tendencies? “
The simple Catholic answer to this inanity is:
1) in the abstract, possibly–abuent studia in mores;
2) in the abstract “all things are possible with God.”
Celibate is not necessarily the same thing as chaste, and it is purity that we owe our Redeemer.
PVO
Point taken,
Though I have read often enough that they try to equate the individual themselves not acts or tendencies.
But my heterosexual tendancies are disordered. I look at women who aren’t my wife a little more than I should, I was tempted to do more than I should have while unmarried.
We are fallen, we are disordered, and it is Christ alone who can make us whole again.
“But my heterosexual tendancies are disordered”
>>
Wrong answer! There are no heterosexual tendendencies, only natural and unnatural sexual desires. It is all in the language we use and we are becoming a society that does not know what it is saying half of the time. This is really where we are losing the battle; if you say these are all just tendencies (like I tend to like chocolate as opposed to mint) then you make them out to be less than they really are and fail to recognize the gavity of the situation. Honestly, the next step will be to approve of 11 year old boy tendencies, or German shepard tendencies. These are all very important distinctions that need to be made before going further into the discussion.
“Imagine if someone told you that your heterosexual tendencies were disordered — not the acts! — but the tendencies.”
Matt 5:27-28 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Do you really need us to spell it out any more clearly?
John H and Tom P,
What you are speaking about are tendencies toward adultery or toward fornication. (both mortal sins) In terms of tending toward sin, you CAN draw a parallel with “homosexual tendencies” or what might otherwise be called tendencies toward sodomy. (One may point out, however that while adultery and fornication are both mortal sins, the tendencies are not toward some unnatural vice – but that which is forbidden given one’s situation in life. The tendency toward sodomy on the other hand IS unnatural [see disordered])
The Friar is right (Nobody expects the vanish inquisition- thanks Jeff, that was great!): it is nonsensical to speak of “heterosexual tendencies” in the same way one would speak of “homosexual tendencies”
Philosoph,
I don’t think it is splitting words but making a crucial distinction. There is a vast difference between describe a “person as disordered” (which the church has not done) and referring to behavior and even tendencies as disordered. If something tends toward disordered behavior it is a disordered tendency! (no matter how much or how little responsibility the individual may carry for that tendency) But we do not define people by their disorders (well, the church doesn’t but the “gay” community is quite content to define themselves that way.)
Wow! Just restating Church teaching and intending to do something about it makes dissenters leave? Cool! What else can we restate?
Actually, it seems that there was another example of this in AZ (I think) where the bishop made all teachers sign that they agreed with certain specific Church teachings. I think some quit rather than sign.
Vanish Inquisition. Awesome. Is that yours? If so, make sure everyone credits you.
Scott,
It was I believe it was Bishop Vasa in the Diocese of Baker in Oregon who had people sign an affimation of personal faith.
As far as vanish inquisition goes I am the proud papa of that pun.
I was going to tell you that the Catechism actually says that homosexuality itself is “objectively disordered,” while homosexual acts have been described by the CDF as “intrinsically evil.” But I see that others have gotten there first.
What confuses me is not why the priest resigned over this document, but why he resigned specifically over the fact that it restates that homosexuality is “objectively disordered.” That has been in the Catechism since it was published in 1992; and it has been repeated again and again by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Why didn’t he know of it before? Personally, I couldn’t miss it.
Thank you for the input, Father! Would it be better if I said it this way:
(1) All persons, due to original sin, are disordered in some ways, to some extent or another.
(2) This disorder manifests itself differently in different people.
(3) One of the manifestations of disorder that occurs in some people is that of being sexually attracted to those of the same sex.
(4) All manifestations of disorder are ‘evil’, in the sense that it involves a privation, to some extent, from a properly ordered human nature.
(5) This does not mean, however, that the mere existence of such privations are morally evil…acting on the basis of such privations, however, IS morally evil.
Does this mean that the person with homosexual tendencies is less ‘in the image of God’ than another person without such tendencies? No. But it is a ‘disordered tendency’, and persons with such tendencies are disordered people. I, too, am disordered. But when the Church teaches about lust, about greed, about injustice, and I recognize myself in these teachings, I recognize my disorders, and do not (or at least try not to) define myself by them. Still, a person with disordered tendencies is disordered. Only Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin were not disordered. To place too much emphasis on the distinction between the person and the tendencies they suffer puts too much distance between our persons and our desires. It is not ‘my lust’ that desires wrongly; lust is the name given to the manner in which I, in some ways, desire wrongly. Similarly, it is not merely ‘the tendency towards homosexual desires’ that is disordered; it is the person who has such tendencies that is disordered. Whether or not such a person is responsible for their condition does not change this.
Pax et bonum…and let’s keep this up!
I should have excepted Our Lord and the Blessed Virgin in the first point, as I did in the subsequent argument.
This is all so rediculous, and the entire notion of bringing into the debate the question of whether who is homosexual is “disordered” is just another distraction from the real problem, and as far as one knows, this so called document will be no different than the document that has been on the book since 1961 and ignored
It is very clear when interviewing a prospective seminarian what their tendencies are, and what they consider themselves. Put two pictures in front of them, one of Angelina Jolie and One of Brad Pitt-and see which one gets them aroused. Brain surgery? More Legal mombo jumbo?
The problem is simple, this same exact so called paper (will it be an encyclical, part of canon law,or just some more show?) as we have had for 40 years that has been ignored, plain and simple because the church wanted liberal priests going forward that were open to all of the changes that they wanted to push forth, including possible woman ordination and who more liberal and willing to depart with tradition and the past church teaching than homosexuals?
Sometimes one reaps what one sows
restate?>>
*Dominos Iesus* had the same effect a few years ago, but not, unfortunately, the resignations. When it came out, all the ecumenical flower-children gathered up their skirts and jumped on the table. My former pastor wrote in the bulletin he was “HORRIFIED” by what it said, even though it stated dogma older than he is. This is a priest in his 60s. It’s one of the reasons he’s my former pastor.
The document, written by BVI in his former life, has been largely forgotten. I think it’s time to ressurect it and enforce it world-wide.
I wish people would realize that it’s not being homosexual that’s disordered, but the actual committing of homosexual acts. Being tempted to sin is different from succumbing to the sin. And also, the whole “abstaining from sexual activity” goes for both homosexuals and hetereosexuals, not just one group. It would be wise to pray for people who misunderstand the facts at hand.
Ancilla: You have it wrong. You are mistaking ‘disordered’ and ‘morally evil’. Homosexual acts are morally evil, and the acts of a disordered individual. Just from a NATURALISTIC viewpoint, homosexuality is clearly disordered; a species which had same-sex sexual attraction as its norm, as opposed to opposite-sex attraction, would not thrive. Homosexuality is a disordering of nature, just as much as ‘tendencies’/’desires’ for violence, alcoholism, etc. And homosexual acts are against the natural law.
If your point is that these attractions are not per se evil, you may not even be right about that; it depends on the extent to which the person has fostered these desires, either through wrongful imagining or wrongful acting. Someone who has these desires simply as a genetic flaw (yes, flaw) alone, and has courageously acted to avoid acting on them (either in acts or in imagination, as much as possible), clearly is not responsible for this. If they have strengthened them either through acting or mere fantasizing, then they are responsible (to some extent) for the increased hold that such desires have. Of course, this is not uniquely true of homosexuality; this is true of any tendency toward vice.
“I wish people would realize that it’s not being homosexual that’s disordered, but the actual committing of homosexual acts. Being tempted to sin is different from succumbing to the sin. And also, the whole “abstaining from sexual activity” goes for both homosexuals and hetereosexuals, not just one group. It would be wise to pray for people who misunderstand the facts at hand. “
I wish people who post would read the catechism before they did so. The disordered nature of homosexual attraction is plainly stated in the catechism. Homsexual conduct is sin, and homosexual attractions are disordered as a matter of natural law, tending to the degradation of the self and the objectification of others.
PVO
Comments are closed.