Banning Gays From Priesthood

There are some very reasonable, fair, open-minded, intelligent, and compassionate orthodox responses to the announcement of the new policy against the admission of gays to the priesthood, and the related inspection of American seminaries, to be found in St. Blog’s Parish. Examples are those of Mark Shea and Amy Welborn. If only we could get that side of St. Blog’s to talk peacefully to the other side, for whom I’ll use Nathan Nelson as an example.

I don’t know whether the discourse thus far has been civil because I thus far haven’t noticed any discourse (outside of echo chambers) whatsoever.

Update 09/23/05: Here are three more good responses to the policy (which I’m now hearing isn’t so new, just not enforced).

Kevin Miller
Gregory Popcak
David Morrison

The post by David Morrison is of particular interest. From David’s "About Me" page:

"David Morrison is the author of this web log and the book Beyond Gay, which Our Sunday Visitor press published in 1999 and which is still in print."

"He is also the found and moderator of Courage Online, an online support community for men and women living with some degree of same sex attraction who wish to do so chastely."

"Throughout his career so far David has written on human rights issues, population issues, pro-life issues and chastity issues. In addition to this web log and the writing for his day job, David speaks and writes on chastity and identity issues."

Comments 8

  1. Andrew Nichols wrote:

    Feel free to read a Protestant angle on it too! 😉 Benedict Is Wrong…

    Posted 22 Sep 2005 at 1:25 am
  2. John wrote:

    Well, it would seem that the Church is abandoning the platitude that it has nothing against homosexual people, just against homosexual activity.

    Is the most noteworthy thing I saw in it.

    Posted 22 Sep 2005 at 3:12 am
  3. Jerry Nora wrote:

    Andrew–I’m shocked, shocked to find a Protestant disagreeing with the Pope. 😉

    John–maybe you could blog on the issue (if this is the John I’m thinking about) and get a real discussion going on this.

    Posted 22 Sep 2005 at 6:23 pm
  4. Tom Smith wrote:

    One tiny point of clarification. This is by no means a “new” policy. It is simply now being enforced. If I remember correctly, it was actually the “liberal” hero Pope John who instituted the policy of heterosexual-only seminaries. (I may be wrong, it might’ve been someone else, but I think it was Bl. John XXIII).

    Any thoughts on the matter, Eric?

    Posted 23 Sep 2005 at 7:53 am
  5. Jerry wrote:

    Tom, as I understand it, John XXIII’s directive only applied to religious communities, not seminaries as a whole.

    Posted 23 Sep 2005 at 5:13 pm
  6. Nathan wrote:

    Eric, by referring to me as “the other side” (and by the way, there are quite a few other people on my side) — are you saying that my response was unreasonable, unfair, closed-minded, unintelligent, incompassionate, and heterodox? 😉

    I don’t think it was very unreasonable — rather, I said very reasonably that this marked a change in the Vatican’s thinking, from condemning behavior to condemning people. In that, I agree with the “reasonable” response of David Morrison. I don’t think it was unfair. Closed-minded? Well, I’m certainly not open to the condemnation of — well, me — anymore than I was open to the condemnation of behavior which I may or may not engage in later on in life. Unintelligent? I don’t know, I thought it was fairly intelligent. Incompassionate? Quite possibly, for I’m having difficulty holding out compassion for prelates who have utterly condemned me and people I love simply for being who we are. Heterodox? Well, you certainly have me there. I am heterodox, and so was my response.

    In any event, I will be sure to check out these “reasonable, fair, open-minded, intelligent, and compassionate orthodox responses.” Thanks for providing them. I just hope your readers haven’t gotten the impression now that I am some unreasonable, unfair, closed-minded, unintelligent, incompassionate, and heterodox ogre. Usually I like them to be surprised by that discovery when they visit my blog. 😉

    Posted 29 Sep 2005 at 4:31 am
  7. Funky Dung wrote:

    Oops. I didn’t word that well, did I? I meant mostly the heterodox bit, i.e. some in St. Blog’s are orthodox and some are heterodox.

    I didn’t think your post was not all the other adjectives. However, I do think the judgment that the Vatican is seeking to condemn people is unfair. To me that’s just a knee-jerk accusation. You’re not the only person from the left side of the pew to make it, though, or even the first.

    On the other hand, there are those on the right side of the pew that are using gays as scapegoats for the pedophile scandal. What caught my attention about Mark and Amy’s remarks was that neither was doing that. To date, I haven’t seen much inter-blog dialogue between your side and theirs. I truly believe it could be fruitful. That’s why I wrote this post wishing aloud for that dialogue.

    BTW, if I really wanted a post that was all of the above – unreasonable, unfair, closed-minded, unintelligent, incompassionate, and heterodox – I’d have linked to one of Andrew Sulivan’s vapid screeds. 😉

    Posted 29 Sep 2005 at 12:12 pm
  8. Funky Dung wrote:

    BTW, I could reword the post if you’d like. 🙂

    Posted 29 Sep 2005 at 12:14 pm

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *