DREADLETTERS: A Gay Seminarian, And A Homoactivist Write - Another Vatican Ban On Gay Priests? Who Are You? What Do You Believe?
[UPDATE] Against neo-conservativism: contrast William F. Buckley's performance in 1969 with Kevin James' "blank slate" in 2008.
[UPDATE] Canada extends compensation to aboriginal individuals forcibly removed from their parents. DREADNOUGHT supports reconciliation with Australia's 'Stolen Generations'.
[UPDATE] After California, is Barack Obama "operationally" opposed to marriage, and the family? Rich Lowry thinks so.
[UPDATE] Majority of Californians support constitutional ban on 'gay marriage'; early figures show big 54% - 35% split.
[UPDATE] Cass R. Sunstein's podcast, and opinion pieces (in the LA Times - general, and Chicago Tribune - on climate change) on one conception of a new, (libertarian) paternalism. Sunstein has a blog with co-author Richard H. Thaler.*
:: I Know Who You Are ::
DREADNOUGHT receives hundreds of emails (including Facebook messages, and other communications) each month, and from all over the world. The messages are always engaging, sometimes profound, and frequently moving. I answer every email in my inbox.
:: Who Do They Say I Am? ::
Many of these communcations, certainly some of the most moving, have been from same sex attracted candidates for the priesthood, or religious life. In light of the 2005 Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders from the Congregation for Catholic Education, and a recent rescript, or clarification from the Vatican that the ban applies to all houses of formation; a DREADNOUGHTER seminarian, who is same sex attracted, wrote with new concerns.
:: A DREADNOUGHTER Writes ::
DREADNOUGHT,
...CNA's headline: Vatican Says Prohibitions Against Gays Universal....seems to imply [that]..."universality" [means] the [universal] exclusion of anyone with SSA, no exceptions, and [that] this is what was clarified.
[Another blogger's] interpretation is the same: that all homosexuals are excluded.
His commenters also follow his interpretation, some almost going in for a sense that any SSA tendency that is "permanent" is a sign of a serious psychological disorder, or even, the sense that this somehow makes one less than a man, and therefore unfit for orders.
However, the clarification is that the 2005 Instruction applies to all houses of formation -- diocesan, religious order, those associated with Societies of Apostolic Life, Eastern Churches etc.
It's an unfortunate headline, because it seems to imply that the careful nuances that were placed in the 2005 document have somehow been clarified to a "no nuance, blanket no" position.
Peace,
DREADNOUGHTER.
:: DREADNOUGHT Replies ::
DREADNOUGHTER,
...You are right, [the blogger in question] seems to go too far (or to muddle the issue, in an unhelpful way) when he writes: "Homosexuals must not be admitted to any seminary in the world. Period."
This is not, as you know, the case.
As I wrote when the Instruction was first made public:
I pray you continue in your obedient efforts, and come to perfection at last in Him. Pray for me too, for all of us. May your purity be a radiant light, and a mighty witness.
Best wishes,
- DREADNOUGHT
:: What Did You Mean When You Said? ::
The second email is in response to DREADNOUGHT's article on 'gay marriage' and community attitudes. DREADNOUGHTER (the editor of a 'gay street paper' with an unambiguous homoactivist agenda) writes, DREADNOUGHT responds in italics.
DREADNOUGHTER,
Many thanks for your email.
1. Are your beliefs on the morality of homosexual individuals consummating their relationships still represented by your 2005 Dreadapologia: Personal Life posting?
I'd have to say no, because that post deals with prurient interest in my personal life, not my views on the morality, or otherwise, of homogenital acts. Of course, I stand by much of what I wrote about the sources, and goals, of such interest.
But, DREADNOUGHT is part of a process of ongoing conversion, and learning. It should be read chronologically. The later posts are, in that sense, usually better than the earlier ones. Certainly, on a quick re-read, some of the details of my personal life might have changed, sometimes radically, and I also would not now refer to a 'sexual orientation', for a number of reasons.
2. ...would your own homosexual life be correctly summed up as "celibate other than regrettable mistakes and moments of weakness"?
No. Celibacy in the Catholic Church is a canonical state, relating - generally - to most priests, some vowed religious, consecrated virgins, and few others. Men who experience same sex attraction are called (like all men - even married men) to chastity.
3. Can you confirm that your definition of a "faithful same-sex attracted Catholic" is one who never, or tries their very best never to act on those feelings?
No. The definition of a faithful, same sex attracted Catholic is the same as the definition of any faithful Catholic. He is someone who believes all that the Catholic Church teaches in faith, and morals - including the teachings on chastity, for all Christians. To give you an idea, such a man is orthodox, rather than heterodox; obedient, rather than protestant; and mindful of his proper relationship to G-d, to his fellows, and to the wider world around him - a universe filled with light, love, beauty, truth, and goodness.
4. Do you oppose condom use in gay relationships or is that a "lesser evil" situation?
Inasmuch as I gave an answer above (at 3), the response here is clear. I stand with the Church.
The Church sets out her teaching on human sexuality, life, and the use of contraceptives in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Humanae Vitae.
I affirm all that the Church has authoritatively taught on this, and all other issues.
The doctrine of 'double effect' is, I think, what you're getting at with the 'lesser evil' question. It is a notoriously tricky area of moral theology, and is not the sort of thing I can expertly describe, let alone expound. The best bet, in such situations, is to look to your confessor; but I can guarantee that no good priest would encourage a man to participate in sodomy.
5. What about abortion in cases where both mother and child will most likely die without one?
Again, the Church's teaching on human life (from conception, until natural death) is authoritatively, and constantly spelled out. See Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letters Veritatis Splendor, and Evangelium Vitae.
In the general area, I have written publicly against embryonic stem cell research; against abortion, and I have argued that the current debate on abortion needs to be attenuated, if not overhauled.
For too long some sides of the debate have ignored, or down-played the very real strains placed on the vulnerable, expectant mother; and the entire discourse could do with a welcome burst of humanity, charity, and due care. I am very sympathetic to those who are standing in solidarity with threatened mothers, I stand with them; and I stand in solidarity with threatened children.
I do no think this position is incoherent, rather reveals a consistent ethic of life. I am also opposed to the death penalty, in all but the most extreme cases (i.e., because it is rarely, if ever the case in the contemporary world that capital punishment achieves what it needs to achieve to be considered just, and ordered towards the common good). In the future, I hope to argue that we must alter social structures, and legal regimes, to effect a more humane environment for all people, for women generally, and mothers in particular.
In short, however, your question doesn't make any sense. For, the child cannot survive the way you've set-up the question (dies by abortion, or dies because of some other factor).
If you're asking me if I think it is better to abort a child who might die, rather than doing everything possible to ensure the child's survival, and the well-being of the mother - I'd say you've got the priority around the wrong way. I am a great believer in the healing, interventionist power of science, and medicine, which must always serve the most vulnerable, even when it seems there is no hope.
6. You've made a great deal of gay activists not representing the real views of the gay community in Australia.
Actually, I've only written one major article on this issue. Most people (certainly, politicians, lobbyists, etc.) think it is so obvious as to not need stating (and re-stating). I was targeting specific individuals, movements, and I got through to them. The homoactivist reaction was, if anything, further confirmation of my claims.
7. What engagement do you have with the gay community in Australia that gives you this inside knowledge of the opinions of a supposed silent majority of gay men (I'll forget about the lesbians, as obviously you have)?
This is a funny question. How do you know about me? There is your answer.
You're right, I don't often write on / for lesbians, but that is only because I am not a woman. That does not mean that I have forgotten them.
Certainly, people are not shy about expressing their views. When I can, and where I think it will alter the debate for the good, I am happy to be a voice for those who are left out of the picture, especially when such voices actually form the majority in such matters - as the research, and other evidence cited attest.
8. I'm not going to fixate on your personal life in the article...
Good. The Herald Sun article didn't offer any information about my personal life, so it's hard to see how it would be relevant in a rebuttal of that article.
9. ...however I think it is worth asking how a man who's views on most other issues deviate quite strongly from the vast majority of gay men can in this instance claim to speak for them.
Well, your contention is embedded in the line of interrogation: you've already made up your mind.
Let me suggest that a rebuttal from [this DREADNOUGHTER] (or any other person who makes a living as a homoactivist, or as an editor of a 'gay street newspaper' with a proud homoactivst agenda) is not really the way to go about demonstrating that the debate has not, indeed, been dominated by unrepresentative homoactivists. You'd actually help prove my point.
10. [Sites / publications that might publish this DREADNOUGHTER's article]...allow readers to comment on articles so you're more than welcome to defend yourself or reply to any criticisms.
I'm not in the habit of reading those sites / publications. I don't pay surrogates to trawl every site that might mention me. I'm not sure I'd have time to respond to your articles, or the comments of readers.
That said, I hope I've demonstrated here that I take care, and good-humour in responding to carefully crafted, earnest emails, and I am always willing to discuss my writing, and ideas, with people who want to challenge, explore, or otherwise engage with me. If you send me your piece, and ask for my response, I will be happy to let you know where you have me wrong.
On that score, if you're interested in the Catholic teaching on human sexuality, but not that interested in me, or my views, I can put you in contact with more amiable / useful experts in [DREADNOUGHTER's city]. I am not hostile to the argument that I am an unworthy, shrill instrument. Many of these ideas are beautiful, and all of them are good, I often worry that my own failings cloud the issues. We can bypass all that, if you like.
Best wishes,
- DREADNOUGHT
:: The Upshot ::
No man wants to waste his time / life attacking (or supporting) a straw man. No thinker should be enslaved by half-muddled ideas, movements, or teachings. As John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote, in his Apologia Pro Vita Sua: "false ideas may be refuted indeed by argument, but by true ideas alone are they expelled".
* (As DREADNOUGHT understands it, Sunstein has argued that 'gay marriage' bans are unconstitutional, and cannot survive the current treatment of the 'equal protection' clause. This is, of course, highly contentious. Certainly, Sunstein's ideas are based on a particular reading of the US Constitution, a reading usually characterised as constructivist / politically liberal. However, Sunstein has also written against activist judges, of all political persuasions, and he has lamented the muddled / 'weak' jurisprudence that produced 'horrible' judgements like Roe v Wade, and Griswold. The model, if not the content, of his new paternalism could be co-opted by those who value freedom, and support a more humane / virtuous society).
[UPDATE] Canada extends compensation to aboriginal individuals forcibly removed from their parents. DREADNOUGHT supports reconciliation with Australia's 'Stolen Generations'.
[UPDATE] After California, is Barack Obama "operationally" opposed to marriage, and the family? Rich Lowry thinks so.
[UPDATE] Majority of Californians support constitutional ban on 'gay marriage'; early figures show big 54% - 35% split.
[UPDATE] Cass R. Sunstein's podcast, and opinion pieces (in the LA Times - general, and Chicago Tribune - on climate change) on one conception of a new, (libertarian) paternalism. Sunstein has a blog with co-author Richard H. Thaler.*
:: I Know Who You Are ::
DREADNOUGHT receives hundreds of emails (including Facebook messages, and other communications) each month, and from all over the world. The messages are always engaging, sometimes profound, and frequently moving. I answer every email in my inbox.
:: Who Do They Say I Am? ::
Many of these communcations, certainly some of the most moving, have been from same sex attracted candidates for the priesthood, or religious life. In light of the 2005 Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders from the Congregation for Catholic Education, and a recent rescript, or clarification from the Vatican that the ban applies to all houses of formation; a DREADNOUGHTER seminarian, who is same sex attracted, wrote with new concerns.
:: A DREADNOUGHTER Writes ::
DREADNOUGHT,
...CNA's headline: Vatican Says Prohibitions Against Gays Universal....seems to imply [that]..."universality" [means] the [universal] exclusion of anyone with SSA, no exceptions, and [that] this is what was clarified.
[Another blogger's] interpretation is the same: that all homosexuals are excluded.
His commenters also follow his interpretation, some almost going in for a sense that any SSA tendency that is "permanent" is a sign of a serious psychological disorder, or even, the sense that this somehow makes one less than a man, and therefore unfit for orders.
However, the clarification is that the 2005 Instruction applies to all houses of formation -- diocesan, religious order, those associated with Societies of Apostolic Life, Eastern Churches etc.
It's an unfortunate headline, because it seems to imply that the careful nuances that were placed in the 2005 document have somehow been clarified to a "no nuance, blanket no" position.
Peace,
DREADNOUGHTER.
:: DREADNOUGHT Replies ::
DREADNOUGHTER,
...You are right, [the blogger in question] seems to go too far (or to muddle the issue, in an unhelpful way) when he writes: "Homosexuals must not be admitted to any seminary in the world. Period."
This is not, as you know, the case.
As I wrote when the Instruction was first made public:
"...[A]s expected it states that:DREADNOUGHT has very good reason to believe that this reading is, and in fact has always been, the correct way to interpret the 2005 Instruction and 2008 rescript.
"...the Church, even while deeply respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to Seminary or Holy Orders those who are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies, or support the so-called gay culture". (emphasis added)
That means:
(1) you can't [participate in homogenital acts] (which is not unfair, all seminarians regardless of sexual inclination, are called to celibacy);
(2) you can't consider yourself the kind of man who just cannot see past his sexuality (i.e., if you're addicted to pornography, or constantly tempted by other men, to the point where you can't put it out of your mind to focus on God); and
(3) if you're a homoactivist or one of their fellow-travellers (i.e., you think Larry Kramer, ACT-UP or [some other extra-Christian authority] often speaks more authentically on human sexuality than the Pope)
you're manifestly not the kind of person who should become a Catholic priest."
I pray you continue in your obedient efforts, and come to perfection at last in Him. Pray for me too, for all of us. May your purity be a radiant light, and a mighty witness.
Best wishes,
- DREADNOUGHT
:: What Did You Mean When You Said? ::
The second email is in response to DREADNOUGHT's article on 'gay marriage' and community attitudes. DREADNOUGHTER (the editor of a 'gay street paper' with an unambiguous homoactivist agenda) writes, DREADNOUGHT responds in italics.
DREADNOUGHTER,
Many thanks for your email.
1. Are your beliefs on the morality of homosexual individuals consummating their relationships still represented by your 2005 Dreadapologia: Personal Life posting?
I'd have to say no, because that post deals with prurient interest in my personal life, not my views on the morality, or otherwise, of homogenital acts. Of course, I stand by much of what I wrote about the sources, and goals, of such interest.
But, DREADNOUGHT is part of a process of ongoing conversion, and learning. It should be read chronologically. The later posts are, in that sense, usually better than the earlier ones. Certainly, on a quick re-read, some of the details of my personal life might have changed, sometimes radically, and I also would not now refer to a 'sexual orientation', for a number of reasons.
2. ...would your own homosexual life be correctly summed up as "celibate other than regrettable mistakes and moments of weakness"?
No. Celibacy in the Catholic Church is a canonical state, relating - generally - to most priests, some vowed religious, consecrated virgins, and few others. Men who experience same sex attraction are called (like all men - even married men) to chastity.
3. Can you confirm that your definition of a "faithful same-sex attracted Catholic" is one who never, or tries their very best never to act on those feelings?
No. The definition of a faithful, same sex attracted Catholic is the same as the definition of any faithful Catholic. He is someone who believes all that the Catholic Church teaches in faith, and morals - including the teachings on chastity, for all Christians. To give you an idea, such a man is orthodox, rather than heterodox; obedient, rather than protestant; and mindful of his proper relationship to G-d, to his fellows, and to the wider world around him - a universe filled with light, love, beauty, truth, and goodness.
4. Do you oppose condom use in gay relationships or is that a "lesser evil" situation?
Inasmuch as I gave an answer above (at 3), the response here is clear. I stand with the Church.
The Church sets out her teaching on human sexuality, life, and the use of contraceptives in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Humanae Vitae.
I affirm all that the Church has authoritatively taught on this, and all other issues.
The doctrine of 'double effect' is, I think, what you're getting at with the 'lesser evil' question. It is a notoriously tricky area of moral theology, and is not the sort of thing I can expertly describe, let alone expound. The best bet, in such situations, is to look to your confessor; but I can guarantee that no good priest would encourage a man to participate in sodomy.
5. What about abortion in cases where both mother and child will most likely die without one?
Again, the Church's teaching on human life (from conception, until natural death) is authoritatively, and constantly spelled out. See Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letters Veritatis Splendor, and Evangelium Vitae.
In the general area, I have written publicly against embryonic stem cell research; against abortion, and I have argued that the current debate on abortion needs to be attenuated, if not overhauled.
For too long some sides of the debate have ignored, or down-played the very real strains placed on the vulnerable, expectant mother; and the entire discourse could do with a welcome burst of humanity, charity, and due care. I am very sympathetic to those who are standing in solidarity with threatened mothers, I stand with them; and I stand in solidarity with threatened children.
I do no think this position is incoherent, rather reveals a consistent ethic of life. I am also opposed to the death penalty, in all but the most extreme cases (i.e., because it is rarely, if ever the case in the contemporary world that capital punishment achieves what it needs to achieve to be considered just, and ordered towards the common good). In the future, I hope to argue that we must alter social structures, and legal regimes, to effect a more humane environment for all people, for women generally, and mothers in particular.
In short, however, your question doesn't make any sense. For, the child cannot survive the way you've set-up the question (dies by abortion, or dies because of some other factor).
If you're asking me if I think it is better to abort a child who might die, rather than doing everything possible to ensure the child's survival, and the well-being of the mother - I'd say you've got the priority around the wrong way. I am a great believer in the healing, interventionist power of science, and medicine, which must always serve the most vulnerable, even when it seems there is no hope.
6. You've made a great deal of gay activists not representing the real views of the gay community in Australia.
Actually, I've only written one major article on this issue. Most people (certainly, politicians, lobbyists, etc.) think it is so obvious as to not need stating (and re-stating). I was targeting specific individuals, movements, and I got through to them. The homoactivist reaction was, if anything, further confirmation of my claims.
7. What engagement do you have with the gay community in Australia that gives you this inside knowledge of the opinions of a supposed silent majority of gay men (I'll forget about the lesbians, as obviously you have)?
This is a funny question. How do you know about me? There is your answer.
You're right, I don't often write on / for lesbians, but that is only because I am not a woman. That does not mean that I have forgotten them.
Certainly, people are not shy about expressing their views. When I can, and where I think it will alter the debate for the good, I am happy to be a voice for those who are left out of the picture, especially when such voices actually form the majority in such matters - as the research, and other evidence cited attest.
8. I'm not going to fixate on your personal life in the article...
Good. The Herald Sun article didn't offer any information about my personal life, so it's hard to see how it would be relevant in a rebuttal of that article.
9. ...however I think it is worth asking how a man who's views on most other issues deviate quite strongly from the vast majority of gay men can in this instance claim to speak for them.
Well, your contention is embedded in the line of interrogation: you've already made up your mind.
Let me suggest that a rebuttal from [this DREADNOUGHTER] (or any other person who makes a living as a homoactivist, or as an editor of a 'gay street newspaper' with a proud homoactivst agenda) is not really the way to go about demonstrating that the debate has not, indeed, been dominated by unrepresentative homoactivists. You'd actually help prove my point.
10. [Sites / publications that might publish this DREADNOUGHTER's article]...allow readers to comment on articles so you're more than welcome to defend yourself or reply to any criticisms.
I'm not in the habit of reading those sites / publications. I don't pay surrogates to trawl every site that might mention me. I'm not sure I'd have time to respond to your articles, or the comments of readers.
That said, I hope I've demonstrated here that I take care, and good-humour in responding to carefully crafted, earnest emails, and I am always willing to discuss my writing, and ideas, with people who want to challenge, explore, or otherwise engage with me. If you send me your piece, and ask for my response, I will be happy to let you know where you have me wrong.
On that score, if you're interested in the Catholic teaching on human sexuality, but not that interested in me, or my views, I can put you in contact with more amiable / useful experts in [DREADNOUGHTER's city]. I am not hostile to the argument that I am an unworthy, shrill instrument. Many of these ideas are beautiful, and all of them are good, I often worry that my own failings cloud the issues. We can bypass all that, if you like.
Best wishes,
- DREADNOUGHT
:: The Upshot ::
No man wants to waste his time / life attacking (or supporting) a straw man. No thinker should be enslaved by half-muddled ideas, movements, or teachings. As John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote, in his Apologia Pro Vita Sua: "false ideas may be refuted indeed by argument, but by true ideas alone are they expelled".
* (As DREADNOUGHT understands it, Sunstein has argued that 'gay marriage' bans are unconstitutional, and cannot survive the current treatment of the 'equal protection' clause. This is, of course, highly contentious. Certainly, Sunstein's ideas are based on a particular reading of the US Constitution, a reading usually characterised as constructivist / politically liberal. However, Sunstein has also written against activist judges, of all political persuasions, and he has lamented the muddled / 'weak' jurisprudence that produced 'horrible' judgements like Roe v Wade, and Griswold. The model, if not the content, of his new paternalism could be co-opted by those who value freedom, and support a more humane / virtuous society).
by DREADNOUGHT at 9:21:00 PM
<< Home