Daily Archives: August 4, 2011
Hat tip to Rorate Caeli for this beautiful, beautiful article about the liturgical impact of homosexuality in the priesthood appeared in the CNA.
[…] more and more Catholics are coming to the unavoidable conclusion (contrary to “official findings”) that the overwhelming majority of abuse cases were directly related to homosexuality
One may further deduce that the historical spike in such incidents also likely coincided with an increase in the relative number of homosexual men in the priesthood – a proposition too unsavory (not to mention too politically incorrect) for many to acknowledge
Those who are willing to look at the situation with eyes opened wide are left to ponder, not just the aforementioned abuse crisis, but also the broader implications of homosexuality in the priesthood.
It follows an exam of the various way in which a homosexual priest is, ipso facto, unfit for the habit from the liturgical point of view:
About the priest as alter Christus:
Psychiatrist Dr. Richard Fitzgibbons, a consultant to the Vatican Congregation for Clergy and a leading expert with more than 35 years of clinical experience treating priests and others who suffer with Same Sex Attraction (SSA), said in a recent interview with regard to homosexuality in the priesthood, “Narcissism – a personality disorder in which an insatiable need for admiration often leads to attention-seeking behavior – is prevalent among men who struggle with homosexuality. This conflict results in a need to draw attention to his own personality in the liturgy rather than to surrender his personal identity in favor of Christ.”
A priest is supposed to be “all male” as Christ was “all male”:
we must not fail to recognize that Christ also reveals in a uniquely profound way what it means to be “male,” and the reality of Christ’s maleness is made expressly manifest in the Mass where the Sacrifice willingly offered by Jesus in love for His Bride and their beloved children is re-presented. (The reader may also wish to consider how this factors into the Church’s inability to confer Holy Orders upon women.)
Insecurity adds to narcissism to tempt the homosexual priest to make of the liturgy his own show if he thinks that this is “popular” among the pewsitters.
“The insecurity inherent to SSA could also predispose the homosexual cleric to seek the approval of the laity by treating the liturgy as performance or by otherwise calling attention to himself”.
The pride so developed in homosexual persons makes the rest:
Furthermore, the underlying anger and disdain for authority that is also endemic to homosexuality could lead to rebelliousness and a determination to ‘do his own thing’ with the liturgy.”
Extreme self-centredness of the homosexual person, whose pleasure comes before everything else:
A quest for self-fulfillment on the part of the priest is the antithesis of the spirit of the liturgy, but according to Dr. Fitzgibbons, homosexuals often tend “to see and to treat their own pleasure as the highest end.”
With the introduction of the mass ad populum,
For the priest who also struggles with an underlying inclination toward narcissism, the temptation to use the liturgy as a venue for seeking attention and personal gratification can be all but overwhelming.
The article continues by saying that as no V II document ever mandated the Mass ad populum, the return of the Mass ad orientem for everyone (including NO) might be in the cards in a not-too-distant future.
This excellent article, of a lucidity and political incorrectness which some years ago would have been unthinkable, omits in my eyes to mention the most important reason why a homosexual can’t be priest: because he is a sexual pervert.
All the problem mentioned (the narcissism, the self-centredness, the search for pleasure, the love for show and attention, the tendency to rebellion) can be also present in a heterosexual male, albeit very often and very probably in lesser degree. But crucially, heterosexuals aren’t sexual perverts even if they are weak; homosexuals are sexual perverts even if they are chaste. This is why in the 1930 years or so before the V II madness the Church had – alas – plenty of the first, but didn’t want to have the second. This is also why a person with deep-seated homosexual tendencies can’t be priest, even if chaste. Would you want a chaste person with attraction to children to be priest?
Vatican II has brought with itself – along with all the other problems – a perversion of the concept of perversion. Suddenly, taboos were considered minor problems. Whilst Pope Paul VI complained about the “fissures” through which the smoke of Satan was entering – without doing anything to close them, by the way – Satan was entering from the main entrance, undisturbed – nay, welcomed in the name of a new way of “being church” – and ready to wreak havoc for decades to come.
Similarly, and in another ironic/satanic twist of things, the liberal idiots who have opened the doors of the Church to homosexual priests are now pretty much the same people criticising the Church for the very problems they have created.
How long will it take before people realise that Vatican II was all wrong, because the mentality that originated it was wrong in the first place, is truly beyond me. The defenders of V II and the legend of it having being “hijacked” remind me of those senseless dreamers thinking that Communism was good, but its execution bad.
I prefer to keep my eyes open.
With his usual refreshing language, Michael Voris examines in the video above the present situation of the Church in the United States.
What is clearly to be understood by his message – even if not explicitly said – is that in the same way as liberals must be thrown out from the position of power they hold in universities and the like, they must also be thrown out from…. around three-quarter of the US bishop’s thrones. Whilst he himself calls for a more decisive action from the – minority of – orthodox and sincere bishops, it is clear that a spring cleaning is not to be expected, and the biological exit the most likely outcome. In the meantime, the orthodox one must become more and more vocal, minimise the damage made the liberals, purge their own dioceses of liberal influence and create a climate more favourable to the appointment of orthodox bishops; which should go without saying, of course, but such are the times…
The Church of today reminds one of Tolkien’s Rohan: dramatically weakened, largely decayed and massively infiltrated by numerous Grima Wormtongues working at her destruction; but still mighty and able to properly wake up to duty and battle, when the spell of post V II liberalism and Neo-Modernism has been cast away.
Responsibility comes from the Latin respondere, “to answer”.
The person who is responsible is the one who has to answer if things go wrong. He is in charge, therefore he is the first one to whom guilt is apportioned. To be in charge means to be the one who is in trouble when bad things happen, the first one who has some explaining to do, and it better be good.
This is a very simple concept. Empires have been built on it. Schools have used it all the times. Countless generations of parents have availed themselves of it. In church matters, Popes and Bishops have used it for almost two thousand years. Ask John Wyclif, or Jan Hus, or the Cathars how it worked. They’ll tell you in no uncertain terms.
The concept seems to be slowly dying. Responsibility is not seen as being in charge anymore, but rather as being the one who is supposed to make some noise.
Look at how many children behave (in church and outside) and consider to what extent this generation is enslaved to the whims of one’s own children, with an army of spineless parents not able to do anything more than to make their impotence and incompetence known to the general public. Make no mistake, the next generation of drug addicts, alcoholics, spineless, spoiled rotten eternal adolescents is growing under our very eyes. They can’t even behave in church, but they are supposed to get through the trouble and challenges of a lifelong marriage. Good luck with that.
Look at how teachers behave, their ability to promptly and severely punish – and therefore, being feared; and therefore, being obeyed and respected – almost completely vaporised by a generation who has demonised the very concept of authority and is simply terrified of every physical contact.
Look at the bishops, all too often reduced to be the smiling spectators of a dynamic which they, even when they don’t like it, feel obliged to leave unopposed. Unless, of course, they are pleased with it.
And look at the Popes, with the past century introducing an extraordinary, unprecedented Papal behaviour like publicly denouncing that from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God, without acting to close the goddamn fissure at once, and with utmost energy. Don’t think that this doesn’t continue today; it only happens in a less tragically ineffective way. Sadly, modern Popes don’t reign. They encourage.
The last generation seems to be the first one for which talking is considered a valid substitute for acting; again, so many people play the game (with their own children; with their own pupils; with their own priests; with their own cardinals and bishops) that this has become normal, and accepted as “the way things go”.
The one in charge is the one who has to act.
If he doesn’t, he’ll have to answer for it, some day.
As you can read here, the judge has given the “Crystal Cathedral” ‘s board time until the 9th August to submit an own plan to emerge from bankruptcy, and will decide on the 14th September on its viability.
As previously reported, the plan seems mainly to consist in asking for online donations from the (undoubtedly) vast following of the “church”. The “hour of power” (well…) “show” is supposed to be able to mobilise the equivalent of 100,000 people giving 500 dollar each. A “courageous” plan, would Sir Humphrey undoubtedly say.
Stranger things have happened, but after careful consideration it is still difficult to me to understand why people living in, say, the Netherlands should feel so attached to the building (not the ministry) to fork out the money those who personally attend the services do not want (or cannot) fork out. In the end, the message doesn’t depend in the least from the edifice and the ministry would certainly continue – albeit in different premises, and perhaps with a different name; perhaps even in the same premises for a while – after the sale of the asset.
Therefore, if I were a, say, typical Mr Van Hooydonk I’d be asked to pay 500 bucks, knowing that other 99,999 people are required to do the same, for the sake of the visual package of my favourite TV transmission.With the rather important consideration that Mr Schuller, the engine behind the success of the “church”, is not a young boy anymore and the organisation to whom the Dutch gentleman gives his money might, in just a few years’ time, have a completely different theological orientation.
But you see, this is always the problem with Protestants: you never know when the club’s rules are going to change.
Not so with Catholicism: a club whose rules are guaranteed never to change, with the Holy Ghost being a guarantor for that. Yes, in this club you are not entirely protected by bad board members, either; but to know that there’s a limit to the damage they can do is a great consolation.
Good luck with the “miracle”, chaps. If you succeed, at least the diocese of Orange will be spared from what remains, in my eyes, a mistake.