Wednesday, October 05, 2005

The problem of the three H's

Namely: hubris, heresy, and homosexuality. That's what the "apostolic visitation" of seminaries now underway needs to tackle as a syndrome. For the indulgence of the last in that list, so disastrous for the Church over the last few generations, is licensed by the second; and the second is in turn is motivated by the first.

And the surest sign of hubris is liturgical abuse. Here's what Fr. John Trigilio, Jr., PhD, ThD, president of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy and co-author of Catholicism For Dummies, has written in that vein:

The upcoming Vatican investigation of seminaries is needed. Not a 'visitation' as done in the past where orthodox bishops were deceived, mislead and fooled into believing all is well. A papal legate with authority to close a seminary or to issue binding corrections or even to consolidate and restructure regional and national seminaries is what we need now more than ever. Faculty members who dissent from the Magisterium need to be removed.

Orthodoxy, especially as elucidated in the Catechism, should be the norm and mandate of what is taught and adherence to the universal rubrics of the Mass and sacraments needs to be practiced and promoted to the future priests. Lastly,
immorality, like alcohol abuse, sexual relations (of either orientation), and other addictive and destructive behavior cannot be tolerated in seminaries or by seminarians.

When sound doctrine is accompanied by reverent worship then virtuous living
makes sense and is easier to practice. When dissident teaching is combined with
liturgical abuse and irreverence, then sinful activity is not far behind. What guys learn in formation they will proliferate in the parish. The seminary investigation team needs to ascertain if orthodoxy is taught, if the sacred liturgy is celebrated properly and if everyone is acting morally. With the devil launching a three-front war, we have no choice but to address all three attacks.


Read it all in Matt Abbott's column.

10 comments:

  1. Hi Michael. I sent you an introductory email. I am kind of taken aback by your use of the word "Orthodoxy". I am Orthodox, with cut off Roman roots, and I have never heard it used that way before. Whatever do you mean?

    ReplyDelete
  2. olympiada,

    In theological parlance, the word takes both upper case and lower case. The meaning of the upper-case word you know: your tradition of Christianity is Orthodoxy. The lower-case word's meaning is more generic.

    In that sense it means "right belief." Regardless of religious tradition, an adherent of that tradition is 'orthodox' if they adhere to the tradition's tenets in the traditional sense of those tenets. Thus one may speak of an 'orthodox' Catholic or of an 'orthodox' Sunni or Shiite Muslim. I call myself an orthodox Catholic to distinguish myself from Catholics, on the left and the right, who diverge from Rome on certain points of faith or morals.

    As I'm sure you know, the use of 'Orthodox' capital-O is not limited to Orthodoxy as a Christian tradition. Jews divine into Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform; only the Orthodox seem to be growing.

    Best,
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mike,
    Ok another semantic concern. Did you know the gay community does not choose the word homosexual? What do you think about that? Whenever I read the word homosexual I think that is a scornful position. Do you actually know any gay Catholic men?
    Regards
    Oly

    ReplyDelete
  5. Mike
    I have another present for you:
    Was Jesus Gay
    Can we discuss this?
    Regards
    Oly

    ReplyDelete
  6. Oly:

    I don't think it's "scornful" to anybody to use a clinically accurate term in preference to "gay", which was once a fine word that can no longer be used to mean what it once did.

    I have known many homosexual Catholic men. I was abused by a homosexual priest as a pubescent; I've sometimes been accused of being "gay" myself, which is absurd. But the accusation probably arose partly because, when I was a college student, some of my best Catholic friends were homosexuals. But they were not "gay" by any means. As a seminary professor I also knew many homosexual priests and seminarians. Some were "gay" about it and some were not.

    Best,
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  7. I've read the article you've linked and agree with it that there's no good evidence that Jesus was "gay." However, I very much object to the suggestion, popularized by Dan Brown in The DaVinci Code, that Jesus and Mary Magdelene were married.

    If that suggestion were true, the early Church would have had no reason to hide it. But there's no evidence for it in the Church's tradition. You might want to check out Amy Welborn's book Decoding DaVinci.

    Best,
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mike
    I have not read the Davinci code. All right you got me going now. What the heck is the difference between gay and homosexual?
    I like your mind, I trust it so I will lay my mind out here so it can be corrected if need be.
    I met well I do not want to say out in public but heck why not I met a gay Orthodox man who calls himself gay not homosexual and have since learned that gay people view homosexual as deragotary.
    What difference does it make? Who knows. It is all a big confusing mess to me.
    Regards
    Oly

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Mike
    I am back with another question. Does the Catholic church not ordain gay men?

    ReplyDelete
  10. oly:

    The Church ordains many men who are homosexually oriented. Some estimates run as high as 50% or more of the total. Yet for reasons I should think are now obvious, she does not knowingly ordain men who are "gay" in the sense of celebrating their orientation as a Good Thing and living accordingly.

    ReplyDelete