Jimmy Akin recetly wrote a post about homosexuality and the priesthood. An interesting tangential argument ensued in the comments. The basic gist (for those too lazy to read for themselves) is that there was some debate as to whether Protestants are saved or not. I say they are, others disagreed.
Lo and behold, today's column at Catholic News Agency addresses this topic. Continue reading
Jeff Miller always seems to more on top of Catholic news in Pittsburgh than me. :/ Anyhow, he mentions an article at KDKA about a press conference held by the Association of Pittsburgh Priests. They want Bishop Wuerl to voice their desire for optional priestly celibacy and ordination of women to next month’s Synod on the Eucharist in Rome. Jeff makes some good observations about better ways for these priests to spend their energy (If the post weren’t so short I’d quote bits of it for you folks). One question that he didn’t ask immediately sprang into my mind as I read the story.
Why in Heaven’s name hasn’t Bishop Wuerl laid the smackdown on this heterodox organization yet?!
Here’s another article.
"In response [to the priest shortage], the Pittsburgh Association of Priests — a group of priests and lay people — is proposing a controversial conversation. Bishop Donald Wuerl goes to a three-week meeting with church leaders in Rome next month."
"When he’s there, some local priests want him to discuss two very radical ideas [optional priestly celibacy and women’s ordination]."
For the record, the idea of married clergy is not radical. Priestly celibacy in the Latin Rite is a discipline, not a doctrine. The ordination of women, however, is a theological impossibility.
Yet another article.
"Along with the priests’ letter to Bishop Wuerl the group also presented him with a petition signed by more than 28,000 Catholics backing their concerns."
*sigh* 28,000 poorly catechized Catholics. Please feed Christ’s sheep, Your Excellency.
Update 10/03/05: Apparently Australia has a similar problem with heterodox priests.
So this is the funniest Christian joke, eh?
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don’t do it."
"Why shouldn’t I?" he asked.
"Well, there’s so much to live for!"
"Like what?"
"Are you religious?"
He said: "Yes."
I said: "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"
"Christian."
"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"
"Protestant."
"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"
"Baptist."
"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"
"Baptist Church of God."
"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"
"Reformed Baptist Church of God."
"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"
He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."
I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.
I’m chuckled. Did you? 😉
I recently had a revelation regarding the nature of faith. For many, it is a mere assent, an atomic event of belief. If we accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, we will gain eternal life. After all, did not Jesus Himself tell us as much? To such individuals, who love the Lord with their souls, works of charity are laudable but not required for salvation. For others, faith is reduced to an intellectual exercise. Surely, if one is well versed and observant of the creeds, councils, and other artifacts of Sacred Tradition, he will be saved. For these, who love the Lord with their minds, there is at least a sense in which faith is a life long pursuit, but even they fall short what God asks in their dry academic studies. Still yet there are those who understand that faith requires love. An attempt is made to love their neighbors. It is an affective love, though, and is often represented by permissiveness and fear of discipline.
They are all wrong. However, like every good lie, they contain aspects of the truth. What is that truth? The Pharisees asked a similar question of Jesus. Continue reading
On Wednesday, I sent the following email to Father Ron Lengwin, spokesman for the Diocese of Pittsburgh.
Father Lengwin,
I have a question I'm hoping you can answer in your capacity as diocesan spokesman. In a recent Post-Gazette article about the current seminary visitations and related comments made by Archbishop Edward O'Brien, Father Jim Wehner is quoted as saying,
"He is being very general. I would not challenge what he said, but I think we need to be more specific. You can have an orientation and never engage in homosexual acts. And you can have some young man who has too much to drink and engages in perversions he never would otherwise. That doesn't mean he's gay."
Domenico Bettinelli, Jr., managing editor of Catholic World News and editor of Catholic World Report, reacted to that statement with the following comments on his blog.
"Never mind that someone with a propensity for drunkness that leads to illicit sexual acts would have a whole other reason to be seriously re-considered for the seminary, what can the rector possibly be thinking? What normal heterosexual male suddenly finds himself a homosexual after having a few drinks? I'm sorry, but drunkenness doesn't change your personality, it lowers barriers and impairs judgment so that you're more likely to do things that are already in your mind."
"This is the kind of thinking that looks for loopholes and excuses, not elevated standards of behavior."
I am inclined to agree with Mr. Betinelli that not only is drunkenness a poor – and highly suspect – excuse for perverse acts, but is troubling on its own. However, I try as often as possible to hear all relevant sides of a story, and thus am loathe to accuse Father Wehner of offering an apologia for licentious behavior in seminaries. Furthermore, I do not think unchecked criticism of clerics is appropriate and provides opportunities for scandal in the Church. If Father Wehner was in any way misrepresented, I would like to know so that I might reply to Mr. Betinelli and others who were scandalized by the perceived apologia pro licentia. Would it be possible for a clarification of his comment to be offered? Thank you in advance.
Father Lengwin forwarded my email to Father Wehner, who responded to me today. He says that he must consult with the diocesan communications officer before clearing me to publish his response. However, I can state that Father Wehner was misquoted and his remarks were taken out of context. In fact, the (mis)quoted comment was made during a related conversation after he had, at the request of the reporter, commented on Archbishop O'Brien's statement that gay men should not be in a seminary. I'll publish his full response as soon as I'm permitted. I suppose technically speaking I don't need permission, but I wouldn't want to needlessly land Father Wehner in trouble with his boss, Bishop Wuerl.
Update 09/28/05: Father Wehner got back to me about publishing his clarification of the Post-Gazette article.
Hello Eric:
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Busy days.
I did speak with our communication office and in agreeing with them I believe I have clarified my remarks in light of the Post Gazette taking them out of context.
Therefore, if anyone else needs this same clarification they can contact me. My remarks to you are not be published.
I again appreciate the opportunity to address the questions you raised.
Sincerely in the Lord,
Father Wehner
His address is jwehner@diopitt.org.