That’s pretty harsh. But I sure wouldn’t mind if they called a Time Out and then took a long honest look at themselves. That in itself would be a very harsh thing, and they would have to deal with the real problems. How can you wave eternal judgement and the fire of hell at Joe Average, when you yourself are more corrupt and depraved than Joe AND got caught in covering it up? It’s not like it’s any secret, the newspapers were glutted with priestly abuses for quite a while. More shocking than the accusations of abuse were the continued cover-ups that were found and the denials.
Thanks for the expansion.
What, so it’s time for Vatican III?
I don’t care what it’s called, just so long as it’s an honest and hard look. No damage control, no dancing around the issues, no hiding of ugly or “uncomfortable” things anymore. The church has re-examined and reversed doctrines before. and can do so again. It just takes the will to do it.
And the odds of that happening with Pope Benedict in charge are… ?
Not too likely. We Mets fans are famous for our holy chant “Wait 'til next year”. That can be adapted to “Wait 'til next pope”. Just because change usually is at a horribly slow pace , doesn’t mean there is no change at all.
Except that as the NYT article quotes one of the sources as saying, the RCC unlike other churches does NOT consider Ordination be a basic human right, nor the rules governing the priesthood to be subject to equal rights analysis. Feeling a Calling does not, then, entitle a Catholic to receive Holy Orders. The requirements for the priesthood can include “no women”, “no gays”, or heck, technically even “no colorblind people” w/o breaking their own rule.
The RCC position on scientific findings is, AFAICT, that it recognizes them, and indeed is quite respectful of scientific findings IRT the material world, but *will not bind its own doctrine-making to science on matters spiritual, or of Church governance. *
To take an apparently nitpicky example, people who have a metabolic problem that precludes them from consuming even trace amounts of gluten may not substitute 100% gluten-free hosts for the Eucharist. At best the Church will approve low-gluten hosts but the doctrine is there’s got to be at least trace gluten – even though those of us more prosaically inclined may react along the lines of “Why? God can’t transubstantiate ANY bread he feels like? And in any case you can plainly see it does not turn into flesh so it’s all in your minds anyway!”. But that’s the rules.
So the RCC recognizes that homosexuality is understood by science, in view of the preponderance of evidence, as an orientation product of natural causes, not a disease (and the Pope, back when he was plain old Joe, acknowledged that gays are fully capable of responsible behavior and that to say otherwise is slanderous) so the Church says that in the **civil ** realm it should not be cause for discrimination or mistreatment… BUT… from the doctrinal standpoint it still is a “disorder” – such that ALL homosexuals are called to “chastity and self-mastery” (I dunno if I’d use that last phrase in this context…).
(And that’s another twist to it… since in that worldview, the gays have to renounce sexual expression ANYWAY, some strict legalist could argue then there’s nothing special about them doing so under vows)
I honestly wonder if I’d feel quite as bad about it, or less so, or worse so, if the purge were to go against ANYONE showing ANY sign of ANY “disordered sexuality”. On the one hand it would make the institution look more consistent, on the other it would REALLY be lumping gays together with pedos and livestock-molesters. One DOES wish for a glimpse into what’s the plan and how they expect it to come together so it actually helps any…
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1108678,00.html?cnn=yes
Among the most severe words issued from the Vatican in recent memory were written by then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, just a month before he became Pope Benedict XVI. Tucked into the Good Friday meditations for the Way of the Cross ceremony at the Coliseum was a phrase whose bluntness caught many in Rome that evening off guard: “How much filth there is in the Church,” he wrote, “and even among those who, in the priesthood, ought to belong entirely to him!” Since becoming Pope in April, Benedict has not yet explained the nature of the “filth” to which he referred. Still, most Catholic Church observers are now convinced that Cardinal Ratzinger, who as the head of the Vatican doctrinal office had been apprised of some of the most heinous cases of clerical sex abuse, was referring to the scandals that have shaken the Church in the United States and elsewhere in recent years.
There is already a Vatican document in force, the 1961 text “Instruction on the Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders,” that appears to explicitly exclude the ordination of homosexuals, even if they are committed to vows of celibacy. If Benedict signs off on this updated and explicit reaffirmation of these standing rules, it would be a sign that he believes they are not being followed. In fact, some U.S. seminaries have operated with a sort of “don’t ask/don’t tell” approach to the sexual orientation of those entering the priesthood.
Some Catholics fear a document of that nature may debilitate a Church already facing a shortage of priets, and might even spark a witch hunt of already ordained gay priests (who should not be affected by the text currently under consideration). Nevertheless, some Catholics don’t expect the document will invoke a blanket ban. Among those who believe that reports of the most draconian version have not originated “from a responsible party” is Father Richard John Neuhaus, the editor of the journal First Things who is influential among the circle of religious conservatives who support President George Bush. Neuhaus, who has close contacts in the Vatican, distinguishes between active homosexuals who embrace an identity s gay and those “who experience homoerotic desires but through spiritual discipline and the grace of God have those desires under control.”
Such a nuance, however, may not stand up in the quiet offices of the Vatican to the loud canonade of Ratzinger’s Good Friday sermon and the procrastinations of the last papacy may soon be giving way to the theological certainties of Pope Benedict XIV.
Right now, it is clear from this artical that the pope has very strong feelings about something, but nobody knows for sure just what. If he was enraged at the abuses, then he is absolutely right. These things make everyone angry. They should make people angry. If however, he is going for a purge of people who have done no harm and have kept their vows (and kept their hands off the people “in their care”), then it is wrong.