Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Libido Redux: On Transgerderism

What Christianity shares with Judaism (and Islam, 
for that matter) is a belief that God created all things (though all three religions understand God differently). We are creatures. We owe our being, our existence, to Him. We are stewards of His creation, stewards, even, of our own bodies. Acknowledgement of God’s creative power leads to religious awe, a sense of the sacred.
This means that each creature/creation has a nature, a manufacturer’s (God’s) instruction manual. Masculinity and femininity are aspects of that nature for human beings. When belief in God becomes irrelevant, we can throw away this instruction manual and refuse to see ourselves as a creature who has responsibilities to God and to society.
To understand ourselves, we need to start at the beginning. What kind of being are we? The traditional answer–originating with the Greeks, continuing in the Middle Ages, and persisting into our own time -- and the answer given by common sense intuition -- is this: we are a union of both material and immaterial, both body and soul, two realities inseparably united and mysteriously intertwined, interconnected, and interrelated.
That humans are a union of both body and soul, inseparably united was challenged in the 17th Century with the work of the French philosopher René Descartes, (who famously wrote, “Cogito, ergo sum, I think, therefore I am”).  Descartes undid this mysterious but evident union by arguing that that the human person was made up of opposing essences, i.e., mind and body, spirit and flesh.  This philosophy, referred to as Modernism, was born with Descartes, and, with the writings of his successors had reduced the human person to “ghost in a machine”. The real person is the ghost, i.e., our will or our consciousness, making our bodies into instruments to be used and modified at the owner’s preference. Thus Modernism, which accompanied the birth of science, in effect tried to account only for realities we can see, touch, think and feel.

With the coming of the German thinker Friedrich Nietzsche originated the philosophy of “post-modernism.” Modernism (which accompanied the birth of science) tried to account for realities we experience – what we can see, touch, think and feel. But modernist philosophy, Nietzsche professed, was unable to account for itself. What actually justified the Enlightenment’s exaltation of reason and its categorical statements of what was right and wrong, true and false, real and unreal? Nietzsche claimed that reason was just a cloak for a “will to power”. In other words, there is no such thing as truth, just politically enforced versions of the truth – my truth, your truth, his truth, her truth ... To assert that my words are true and yours are false is an act of aggression. Pope Benedict XVI labeled this “the dictatorship of relativism.”
Another post-modernist thinker was Michel Foucault, a French philosopher and homosexual (who, sadly, died of AIDS in 1984), associated with what has been called the structuralist and post-structuralist movements, which questioned the distinction between health and disease, rationality and madness. Foucault said humans are unaware of to what extent our values define what is regarded as a disease. There is no such thing as “normal”, especially in sexuality. Normality is defined and imposed by a hegemony – or redefined. Homosexuality used to be listed in the psychiatrists’ Bible, the DSM Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, as a paraphilia, then as a sexual orientation disturbance, then as ego-dystonic homosexuality, and in 1987 it was dropped completely by a minority vote of American Psychiatric Association members.
The post-modernist rejection of truth is the philosophy of our own time – and therefore of most journalists. And not just morality is relative, but reality. The typical post-modernist project is not to learn from reality, but to create a new reality, a new vision of things. This explains the dizzying subtlety of transgender philosophy and science. The more detached from reality it is, the more complex it becomes. Let us listen for a moment to Leah Juliett, an American non-binary, queer, anti-revenge-porn activist, on the lived experience of her gender fluidity:
I see gender as a solar system; it’s so vast and wide with so many options that you can’t really contain it to a small binary scale. Some days, I may feel more male; some days, more female; and some days, I may feel completely neutral and existing in that grey area.
Post-modernism at its contemporary finest.
In my book on modernist influence of the Catholic Church I outlined how “The Pill” made possible the separation of sex from reproduction, along with Pope Paul VI’s forecast of four evils that would result from a disobedience to Church teaching set down in his encyclical Humanae vitae:
·         widespread contraceptive practice would lead to “conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality.”
·         Men… would “lose respect” for women and no longer care for their physical and psychological enjoyment.
·         The contraceptive mentality would “place a dangerous weapon…in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies.”
·         Contraception would lead humans into thinking they have unrestricted authority over their bodies.

For our purpose here, on point four, here is Letty Cottin Pogrebin, a founding editor of Ms. Magazine:
The impact of The Pill was even more radical. It meant sex need not lead to pregnancy. But it wasn’t just another form of contraception, it was an equalizer, a liberator, and easy to take. For the first time in human history, a woman could control her sexuality and determine her readiness for reproduction by swallowing a pill smaller than an aspirin. …  The Pill bore revolutionary results. It allowed women to become autonomous decision-makers rather than captives of our biology…
No doubt feminist Pogrebin wasn’t thinking of the link to transgender issues in uttering “Captives of our biology,” but that a derivation conveyed by the contraceptive mentality. If sex is not centrally about reproduction, what is it about? Pleasure, perhaps. Is it about self-definition? Who knows? Artificial contraception has indoctrinated the last three generations in the belief that sex has no essential purpose, no nature. But think about the ramifications of not knowing what the human libido is for. Ignorance of the purpose of one’s sexuality must be a terrible burden, especially for a teen. He or she has never known a world which does not include the pill, one in which sex has a clear purpose. Thus, from his or her point of view, feeling transgender appears as one point on the spectrum of post-modern human sexuality, not an extreme deviation from what is normal. Traditional marriage, with its life-long commitment and a definitive role for sex (the antithesis of post-modernity) might seem countercultural.
So we are proposing that the Transgender Moment is the offspring of new philosophies and technology, Christianity’s decline, Cartesian philosophical dualism, post-modernism and the Pill. As a consequence, transgenderism it is argued that it’s normal and natural. Why shouldn’t people – of any age – solve their psychological problems with mastectomies and castration? Why is transgenderism is being normalized? Here are proposals:
§  Radical feminism.
§  Reproductive rights.
§  Changing family structures.
§  Infiltration of the education bureaucracy.
§  Experience gained from gay activism.
§  The rise of identity politics.
§  The impact of social media like YouTube and Facebook.
§  Corporate bullying.

But even more fundamental are the subjective philosophical ideas which have become deeply embedded in our culture, which help to explain why transgenderism is argued as both plausible and righteous in today’s world.


Saturday, July 6, 2019

Shepherding Shepherds

 As Jonathan Coe has recently observed,

When we look at the contemporary ecclesial landscape, we should never limit what the Holy Spirit can do, but any optimism needs to be tempered by certain realities. For example, in looking at the Catholic Church in America, (1) our de facto leader is the heterodox, zeitgeist puppet Cardinal Blaise Cupich; (2) homosexualist priest Fr. James Martin has been given almost carte blanche in peddling his lavender gospel; and (3) the USCCB voted 137-83, with three abstaining, to not encourage the Holy See to release all documents concerning allegations of sexual misconduct by the recently defrocked ex-Cardinal McCarrick.
The list goes on and on.

In the face of these disheartening developments, Coe highlights the shepherding of 3 prominent churchmen; Archbishop Charles Chaput, Cardinal Robert Sarah, and Bishop Athanasius Schneider.

Let’s sample the thinking of the first shepherd. In his talk at the Pontifical College Josephinum in Ohio, Archbishop Charles Chaput informed his audience he was acutely aware of the confusion, anger, and anxiety they were experiencing due to the sins of many priests and bishops in the Church, experiences he likewise was undergoing.
Archbishop Chaput with The Pope

As were many prelates, upset with Rome for its denial of root causes of the scandal and crisis: homosexual predation. The Archbishop of Philadelphia encouraged the laity: “God doesn’t lose.” He remarked that the People of God were born to shine in these dark times: “Fear can be toxic;” and must be abandoned, recalling the words of Pope St. John Paul II the Great: “Be not Afraid.”

And now for a personal favorite of mine, Cardinal Robert Sarah, the prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. His Eminence has new book in which he writes that the Church “is wrapped and blinded by the mystery of iniquity,” which can only be solved by the timeless truths of prayer, fidelity to the Magisterium, fraternal charity, and the love of Peter. He is a favorite of mine for selfish reasons, being convinced that “the smoke of Satan” has entered the Church, and that the crisis is a spiritual crisis. He says:

We have abandoned prayer. The evil of efficient activism has infiltrated itself everywhere. We seek to imitate the organization of large companies. We forget that only prayer is the blood that can irrigate the heart of the church … He who does not pray has already betrayed. He is already prepared for every compromise with the world. He walks in the steps of Judas.
So many spiritual obituaries begin with “Father stopped praying.”

Cardinal Sarah
Intriguing is Sarah’s reflection that many Church’s leaders are stricken with the “mystery of Judas”: “…little by little, Judas’s heart was taken over by doubts. Imperceptibly, he started judging Jesus’s teaching. He said to himself: ‘this Jesus is too demanding, and not efficient enough.’ Judas wanted to make the kingdom of God come on earth straightaway, through human means and according to his personal plans.” The Prefect also takes to task those who depart from Magisterial teaching: “We tolerate any calling into question. The Catholic doctrine is challenged, and in the name of self-styled intellectual postures, theologians take pleasure in deconstructing dogma and in emptying morals of their profound meaning. Relativism is the mask of Judas disguised as an intellectual.”

Athanasius Schneider, O.R.C,
Auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan Athanasius Schneider, O.R.C, one of the truly great shepherds in our day, has gone on record corroborating the aforementioned root causes of the scandals, naming the following:

One of the evident, observable and deepest roots of the sexual abuse of minors is homosexuality among the clergy. Of course, I will not say that all homosexuals are necessarily abusing children. This would be unjust and untrue. But we are speaking about clerical abuse in the Church, and so we have to focus on this illness.
It has been proven that more than 80 percent of victims were post-pubescent males. It is therefore evident that the nature of the majority of this abuse involved homosexual acts. We have to stress that this is one of the main roots.
The other main root of the abuse crisis is the relativism on moral teaching which began after the Second Vatican Council. Since then, we have been living in a deep crisis of doctrinal relativism, not only of dogmatics but also of morals—the moral law of God.
Morals were not taught clearly in seminaries over the past 50 years; it was often not clearly taught in seminaries and theological faculties that a sin against the sixth commandment is a grave sin. Subjectively there may be mitigating circumstances, but objectively it is a grave sin. Every sexual act outside a valid matrimony is against the will of God. It offends God and is a serious sin, a mortal sin.
This teaching was so relativized… We have to stress this … the relativism of moral teaching, specifically on the sixth commandment.
Another deep cause is the lack of a true, serious, and authentic formation of seminarians. There was a lack of ascesis in the life and formation of seminarians.
It has been proven by two thousand years, and by human nature, that without physical ascesis like fasting, praying, and even other forms of corporal mortifications, it is impossible to live a constant life in virtue without mortal sin. Due to the deep wound of original sin and the concupiscence still at work in every human being, we need corporal mortification.
St. Paul says: “Make no provision for the flesh, to gratify its desires” (Rom. 13:14). We can paraphrase these words, saying: do not nurture your flesh too much or concupiscence will dominate you. And this is exactly what often happened in seminaries. Seminarians and priests nurtured the flesh through a comfortable life without ascesis, without fasting and other bodily and spiritual mortifications.
But to me, the deepest cause of the clerical sex abuse crisis is the lack of a deep and personal relationship with Jesus Christ. When a seminarian or a priest does not have a deep personal relationship with Jesus Christ, in constant fidelity to a life of prayer and really enjoying a personal love for Jesus, he is easy prey for the temptations of the flesh and other vices.
Furthermore, when you have a deep and personal love of Christ, you cannot deliberately commit a horrendous sin. Occasionally, because of the weakness of human nature, a priest or seminarian could commit a mortal sin against purity. But in the same moment, he is deeply repentant and decides to avoid the next sin at any cost. This is a manifestation of a true love of Christ. But it is for me completely excluded that a person who deeply loves Christ can sexually abuse minors. It is for me impossible. In my opinion, a deep love of Christ excludes this.

Oremus. Totus tuus.

Monday, June 24, 2019

A Good Shepherd....

Bottom of Form
Indianapolis archbishop revokes Jesuit prep school's Catholic identity
Top of Form
Bottom of Form
Indianapolis, Ind., Jun 20, 2019 / 01:49 pm (CNA).- The Archdiocese of Indianapolis announced Thursday that a local Jesuit high school will no longer be recognized as a Catholic school, due to a disagreement about the employment of a teacher who attempted to contract a same-sex marriage.
“All those who minister in Catholic educational institutions carry out an important ministry in communicating the fullness of Catholic teaching to students both by word and action inside and outside the classroom,” the archdiocese said in a statement Thursday.
“In the Archdiocese of Indianapolis, every archdiocesan Catholic school and private Catholic school has been instructed to clearly state in its contracts and ministerial job descriptions that all ministers must convey and be supportive of all teachings of the Catholic Church.”
Teachers, the archdiocese said, are classified as ‘ministers’ because “it is their duty and privilege to ensure that students receive instruction in Catholic doctrine and practice. To effectively bear witness to Christ, whether they teach religion or not, all ministers in their professional and private lives must convey and be supportive of Catholic Church teaching.”
“Regrettably, Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School has freely chosen not to enter into such agreements that protect the important ministry of communicating the fullness of Catholic teaching to students. Therefore, Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School will no longer be recognized as a Catholic institution by the Archdiocese of Indianapolis.”
School leaders said that despite the archdiocesan decision, “our identity as a Catholic Jesuit institution remains unchanged,” in a June 20 statement to the school community.
The conflict between the school and the archdiocese began with an archdiocesan request that the contract of a teacher who is in a same-sex marriage not be renewed.
The school became aware of the teacher's same-sex marriage in the summer of 2017, according to a June 20 statement from Fr. Brian Paulson, SJ, head of the Jesuits' Midwest Province.
Paulson said the archdiocese requested “two years ago that Brebeuf Jesuit not renew this teacher’s contract because this teacher’s marital status does not conform to church doctrine.”
The school leaders wrote that “After long and prayerful consideration, we determined that following the Archdiocese’s directive would not only violate our informed conscience on this particular matter, but also set a concerning precedent for future interference in the school’s operations and other governance matters that Brebeuf Jesuit leadership has historically had the sole right and privilege to address and decide.”
Paulson stated that Brebeuf Jesuit “respects the primacy of an informed conscience of members of its community when making moral decisions.”
“We recognize that at times some people who are associated with our mission make personal moral decisions at variance with Church doctrine; we do our best to help them grow in holiness, all of us being loved sinners who desire to follow Jesus.”
He added that this problem “cuts to the very heart of what it means to be a Jesuit institution with responsibilities to both the local and universal church, as well as for the pastoral care we extend to all members of our Catholic community.”
“I recognize this request by Archbishop Charles Thompson to be his prudential judgment of the application of canon law recognizing his responsibility for oversight of faith and morals as well as Catholic education in his archdiocese,” the priest wrote. “I disagree with the necessity and prudence of this decision.”
The Jesuits maintain that their school's internal administrative matters should be made by their own leaders, rather than the local Church.
While the Code of Canon Law establishes that religious orders, like the Jesuits, “retain their autonomy in the internal management of their schools,” it also says that the diocesan bishop has “the right to issue directives concerning the general regulation of Catholic schools” including those administered by religious orders.
Canon law also says that the diocesan bishop “is to be careful that those who are appointed as teachers of religion in schools, even non-Catholic ones, are outstanding in true doctrine, in the witness of their Christian life, and in their teaching ability.”
The Church’s law adds that the diocesan bishop “has the right to appoint or to approve teachers of religion and, if religious or moral considerations require it, the right to remove them or to demand that they be removed.”
The Archdiocese of Indianapolis policy, which says that all school teachers and administrators have a responsibility to teach the Catholic faith, is a common interpretation of those norms in U.S. Catholic dioceses.
The archdiocesan June 20 statement notes that the archdiocese “recognizes all teachers, guidance counselors and administrators as ministers.” The 2012 Hosanna Tabor v. EEOC Supreme Court decision established that religious institutions are free to require those it recognizes as ministers to uphold religious teachings as a condition of employment.
The school's leaders claim that “the Archdiocese of Indianapolis’ direct insertion into an employment matter of a school governed by a religious order is unprecedented.”
Fr. Paulson framed the problem as one of “the governance autonomy regarding employment decisions of institutions sponsored by the USA Midwest Province of the Society of Jesus.”
“Our disagreement is over what we believe is the proper governance autonomy regarding employment decisions which should be afforded a school sponsored by a religious order. In this particular case, we disagree regarding the prudential decision about how the marital status of a valued employee should affect this teacher’s ongoing employment at Brebeuf Jesuit.”
The school's leaders added that failing to renew the teacher's contract would cause “harm” to “our highly capable and qualified teachers and staff.”
“Our intent has been to do the right thing by the people we employ while preserving our authority as an independent, Catholic Jesuit school.”
The leaders noted that they “are prayerfully discerning how best to proceed with the process of appealing the Archdiocese’s directive.”
Fr. Paulson said the province will appeal the decision, first through the archbishop “and, if necessary, [pursuing] hierarchical recourse to the Vatican.”
Canon law establishes that “no school, even if it is in fact Catholic, may bear the title 'Catholic school' except by the consent of the competent ecclesiastical authority,” in this case, the Archbishop of Indianapolis.
Brebeuf was founded in 1962 by the Society of Jesus. Its 2019 enrollment is 795 students, and tuition at the school is $18,300.
The Archdiocese of Indianapolis has previously addressed similar issues.
In August 2018, Shelley Fitzgerald, a guidance counselor at Roncalli High School in Indianapolis, was placed on paid administrative leave. An employee of an archdiocesan school, Fitzgerald had attempted to contract a same-sex marriage in 2014.
At that time, Archbishop Thompson wrote that “the archdiocese’s Catholic schools are ministries of the Church. School administrators, teachers and guidance counselors are ministers of the faith who are called to share in the mission of the Church. No one has a right to a ministerial position, but once they are called to serve in a ministerial role they must lead by word and example. As ministers, they must convey and be supportive of the teachings of the Catholic Church. These expectations are clearly spelled out in school ministerial job descriptions and contracts, so everyone understands their obligations.”
He added that “When a person is not fulfilling their obligations as a minister of the faith within a school, Church and school leadership address the situation by working with the person to find a path of accompaniment that will lead to a resolution in accordance with Church teaching.”
The archbishop concluded: “Let us pray that everyone will respect and defend the dignity of all persons as well as the truth about marriage according to God’s plan and laws.”

Saturday, May 18, 2019

Dancin' With Mr. D.: "Abolish the Priesthood" by James Carroll

Now, what would the prince of this world like to see more than what ex-priest James Carroll has called for in his recent screed in the Atlantic: the abolition of the priesthood of Jesus Christ. Why? He says because the Church’s reputation and membership have suffered under the continual revelations of sexual abuse by those he erroneously labels "pedophiles, in reality the homosexual network of priests aided by bishops(homosexual and heterosexual), and cardinals who’ve protected each other at the expense of many victims.  In his own words: 

Clericalism is both the underlying cause and the ongoing enabler of the present Catholic catastrophe. Only by dismantling the clerical hierarchy can the Church end the perpetual scandals, move into the modern age, and preserve the faith of its believers.
Let us set the record straight by quoting a victim of priestly sexual abuse: "both clericalism and homosexuality in the clergy are major proximate causes of the scandal. It’s not either-or; it’s both-and. That is why blaming one without the other is a form of ideological scapegoating [emphasis mine] which, in turn, both conceals and reveals the true root of the problem." So much for Carroll's mislabeling of the source of the sin as "pedophilia."

The former priests' screed necessitates stating moreof the relevant facts concerning the homosexual priest crisis, the latest in a bevy of scandalous behaviors which have attacked the Church since her inception at Pentecost in the first century.

Carroll goes on to push for transformation of the whole of Catholic belief: ending celibacy for priests, the exclusion of women from the priesthood, bringing the laity into positions of power, fostering equality for women as administrators in the Vatican: “Yes to female sexual autonomy; yes to love and pleasure, not just reproduction as a purpose of sex; yes to married clergy; yes to contraception; and, indeed, yes to full acceptance of homosexuals,” Carroll writes. “No to male dominance; no to the sovereign authority of clerics; no to double standards.” It seems to me that “yes” to sexual autonomy, the libido, contraception, and full acceptance of homosexual sexual activity in the world are, after “the spirit of Vatican II’s’ opening of the Church’s windows to the spirit of the age of the 1960s sexual revolution the root cause of the present crisis. Be not afraid. Jesus said,  Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age. God needs nothing from James Carroll, but he? Oremus.

Thursday, February 21, 2019

Libido Redux: The New York Times and the Gay Agenda

As I mentioned in my most recent post, we are on the eve of the Vatican summit on The Protection of Minors in the Church. My intention was to point out that the New York Times, concerned that the homosexual orientation will be blamed as the cause of the crisis, mounted an attack priestly celibacy. The Times suggests that celibacy is the cause of the current crisis in the Church, having previously championed abortion on demand, “gay marriage” and transgenderism in arguing that sex—in any way, with anyone—is the final expression of individual desire and personal self-actualization.

As I discussed in The Smoke of Satan, the big lie of the Sexual Revolution is that human beings must act on their sexual impulses, however they may manifest themselves. Not to do so wars against nature by “repressing” these urges, to the ultimate detriment of the person. 
Post-McCarrick, with the lay faithful pleading that the the Holy Father and the Vatican do something about world-wide reports of homosexual sexual activity among a minority of priests, 80 percent of whose victims were male and post-pubescent, the Times threw down the gauntlet with front page piece, “‘It is not a closet. It is a cage.’ Gay Catholic Priests Speak Out”.   The piece was an obvious attempt to drum up sympathy for priests with a homosexual orientation, fashioned as victims of a bigoted Church. Post-McCarrick, the Times bewailed that “widespread scapegoating has driven many priests deeper into the closet.”

As I wrote in my previous post, the Times disingenuously said “study after study shows that homosexuality is not a predictor of child molestation,” (it is a factor in predicting homosexual sex acts) citing the Jay Report in 2004 as evidence. What was not discussed was a November 2018 study by the Ruth Institute using the same data as the Jay Report, which showed “a strong correlation between the percentage of self-described homosexuals in the Catholic priesthood and the incidence of sexual abuse of minors by the clergy.”

With yet another piece, “The Catholic Church Is Breaking People’s Hearts,” what is one to conclude but that in publishing to defend the Sexual Revolution’s notion that the homosexual orientation is normal, it implies that celibacy is the cause of priests’ sinful behavior. The Times is pushing the Gay agenda, uninterested in discovering the real causes of sexual abuse by clergy (or anyone, for that matter)—a lack of holiness, which makes one more disposed to temptation, and a failure to properly integrate men’s sexuality within their lives. Thus, the sinful priests we read about, driven by their sexuality, and enabled (in some cases encouraged) by seminaries that formed men in accordance with the bankrupt dogmas of the Sexual Revolution rather than those of Jesus Christ, must bear the blame for the scandal facing the Church. Just study the case of Mr. McCarrick, the late Cardinal Keith O’Brien of Scotland, and Archbishop Rembert Weakland of Milwaukee among others.

The New York Times will never do its homework here, as it knows that what turns up will give the lie to their agenda. As one sociologist who has done his homework has written, “[T]o people who hate the truth, the truth looks like hate.”

Sunday, February 17, 2019

The Sex Crisis Post-McCarrick.

The Holy Father has summoned the bishops for  conference on the homosexual priest crisis in Rome, Feb. 21-24. Elizabeth Dias of the Times has used the occasion to relate half-truths concerning the crisis brought about by the
Mr. McCarrick
unchastity of many, not all priests with homosexual orientations in the Body of Christ.  No doubt the idea that the homosexual sexual orientationis behind the abuse crisis will be of paramount importance in the discussions. Anyone wishing to fully understand the nature of the current crisis facing the Church brought about by not "gett(ing) it right sexually." (to paraphrase one priest interviewed in Dias' article), will be led further from the truth of things after reading the Times exposeˊ.

In his work, Goodbye, Good Men, author Michael Rose documents the abuses that took place in American seminaries and diocesan vocation offices not long after the Second Vatican Council ended. Mr.  Rose did not set out to explain the crisis of sexual misconduct among Catholic priests. Rather, his book is an exposé of a more profound spiritual problem, one I wrote about in the book around which this blog is centered. Rose reveals telling picture of Catholic seminaries to 1990, wherein homosexual promiscuity was rampant and even encouraged, where dissident authors and heterodox textbooks were required reading, and where seminarians faithful to the Church’s teachings were persecuted. 

Rose for understandable reasons uses anonymous sourcesthroughout his book, and so  likely could not have anticipated the interrogation his book would receive post-2002. Nevertheless, reliable sources including Fr. Peter Stravinskas, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus, professor Ralph McInerny, and many, many others believe that Goodbye, Good Men presents an accurate picture of the debased condition of American seminaries after the Council. 

The thesis of Goodbye, Good Men is that the shortage of vocations to the priesthood in America is artificial and contrived. He writes, “the priest shortage is caused ultimately not by a lack of vocations, but by attitudes and policies that deliberately and effectively thwart true priestly vocations.” The rest of the work studies these phenomna. Among the more relevant findings for puroposes of understanding the present situation in the Church:
  • In his third chaper Rose discusses he screening process often used at diocesan vocation offices to “weed out applicants that are perceived as ‘Old Church, ’ i.e., "pre-Vatican II." 
  • Chapter four documents in detail how a homosexual subculture  was in evidence in many American seminaries. In this chapter a shameless homosexual seminary underworld is revealed, an underworld that Andrew Greeley dubbed the “Lavender Mafia.” (The sexual and emotional abuse chronicled in this chapter is demonic). 
  • The tenth chapter examines how the corruption in American seminaries went undetected. 
  • Chapter eleven explains the cause of these problems as a desire for the termination of the male, celibate priesthood on the part of seminary administrations and diocesan vocation directors.
Ms. Dias' contends that "Studies repeatedly find there to be no connection between being gay and abusing children." This is sophistry, as the problem is not pedophilia, defined b y the DSM-V as a "diagnosis assigned to adults (defined as age 16 and up) who have sexual desire for prepubescent children (American Psychiatric Association, 2013a-emphasis mine). Ms. Dias has not done her homework here. In response to the scandal over sexual misconduct with persons under age eighteen by members of the Catholic clergy, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops commissioned the John Jay College of Criminal Justice to conduct a comprehensive study of the problem. The study The Nature and Scope of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States 1950–2002, was released in 2004.1 This was followed by Supplementary Data Analysis released in 20062 and the Report on the Causes and Context study in May 2011.3 The data in the reports strongly suggests that homosexual abuse of adolescent males is at the heart of the crisis. Furthurmore, a number of well-designed studies have found that men with the homosexual orientation are more likely to have psychiatric and substance abuse disorders and STDs than heterosexual males, and are more likely to have a positive attitude to sexual relations between adult and adolescent males. In short, most abuse incidents consist of homosexual acts committed with adolescent young men, not children, as is oft reported in the secular media. One bishop hits the nail on the head:

There has been a great deal of effort to keep separate acts which fall under the category of now-culturally-acceptable acts of homosexuality from the publically-deplorable acts of pedophilia. That is to say, until recently the problems of the Church have been painted purely as problems of pedophilia — this despite clear evidence to the contrary. It is time to be honest that the problems are both and they are more. To fall into the trap of parsing problems according to what society might find acceptable or unacceptable is ignoring the fact that the Church has never held ANY of it to be acceptable — neither the abuse of children, nor any use of one’s sexuality outside of the marital relationship, nor the sin of sodomy, nor the entering of clerics into intimate sexual relationships at all, nor the abuse and coercion by those with authority.

To "get it right on sexuality, the Church needs only follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Church on the moral use of the Father's gift of sex, (the call to chstity) which requires metanoia, and that one be in right relationship with Him. It is that Simple.  Strive to enter through the narrow gate. Oremus.

Wednesday, January 2, 2019

Why did God Make You?

Often we get caught up in the things of this world to the extent that, as Catholics, we forget why God made us, and what our existence means, really. So, find 45 minutes, and enjoy!