As I wrote a few days ago, gay men are likely going to be “weeded out” of the priesthood. Now, the New York Times has their reactions. It’s telling (and logical) that none of the gay semarians interviewed for this article wanted their names used.
“I find that I am becoming more and more angry,” said a 40-year-old priest on the West Coast who said he had not decided whether to reveal his homosexuality publicly. “This is the church I’ve given my life to and I believe in. I look at every person I come in contact with as someone who’s created in the image and likeness of God, and I expect that from the church that I’m a part of. But I always feel like I’m ‘less than.’ ”
Compare that to the reaction of the anti-gays, some of which are truly bizarre:
Helen Dunn, a retired teacher, said it was important to weed out gay men at the seminary level, “because that’s where the problems start.”
“They’re looking for something they can’t get,” Ms. Dunn added.
…and that would be? I don’t get it. Why are gay semarians looking for “something they can’t get” in a way that straight ones aren’t? Why do I get the feeling that in her view, the “something they can’t get” is God’s love?
Bruno Basedy, 55, an immigrant from Colombia, said that homosexuality was “no good” and demonstrated acceptable conduct by singing the theme from Wagner’s wedding march.
So homosexuality is no good, but homosexuals singing wedding songs are a-ok. Or maybe just middle-aged men singing wedding songs are ok. Or marriage is ok for gay semarians? Got it.
The Rev. John Trigilio Jr., president of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, a conservative 400-member group based in Harrisburg, Pa., said that barring gay men from seminaries was “for their own good,” just as the church once barred epileptics from the priesthood.
“It’s pretty much the same thing,” Father Trigilio said. “The work and the ministry of the priesthood is going to be too demanding and will put a strain on them. He’s going to have to spend five to eight years in a seminary where he’s only going to be with men.”
Uh… right. And then he might have a massive seizure. And it’s not like gay men are used to living in a world where there are a whole helluva lotta other men around.
(Side question: Does the Church still ban epileptics from being priests? That strikes me as a little overzealous).
One gay seminarian in his 30′s responded that such reasoning was “ridiculous” and that he has lived harmoniously for four years with a group of mostly heterosexual seminarians.
“Homosexual men are socialized differently,” he said. “We have spent our whole lives living and working with other men. We’ve been on the same school teams, shared the same locker rooms, been in the same fraternities, and we are accustomed to being around people to whom we are attracted. To suggest that because one has a homosexual orientation one is unable to control one’s sexual impulses is, frankly, insulting.”
Amen.
Great blog Jill, goes to the point.
Hello. We have the same last name. I live in Croatia. Are you from Croatia, Bosnia or Serbia? Bye!
So um… I guess this is what they’re doing, rather trying to weed out pedophiles?
Epileptics–along with anyone else with a hint of mental instability–were barred from holy orders of both genders because their vocations were suspect, not because the priesthood is like the Army. When the rule was created, mental illness in general was poorly understood, and mental illnesses weren’t much distinguished from each other. The Church wanted to make sure that no one unstable was entering into an enormous committment when they couldn’t accurately gauge the state of their devotional psyche, and it couldn’t differentiate between “schizophrenic,” “bipolar,” and “has seizures controlled with medication.” Additionally, some forms of epilepsy can cause hallucinations and other things associated with miraculous visitations–like hypergraphia and what looks a great deal like speaking in tongues. People who experience them can believe that they are having visions of God. I don’t think the rule is just by any means, but it has nothing to do with child sexual abuse or the homophobic crackdown on gay men in the priesthood.
I don’t even understand the connection. Do they think that gay male vocations are suspect for similar reasons? I’m gay, and therefore I really just think Jesus has a cute butt?
sooooo, is the next step going to be to weed out the lesbian nuns in the convents?
this whole thing is so rediculous! I’m not Catholic, but I’m pretty sure the whole idea of going into a seminary or a convent, is that you pretty much check your sexuality at the door, homo or hetero. and what exactly are they going to use to prove homosexuality in these preists? show them playgirls and see what happens?
I think whoever and whatever god is, is shaking her head in disgust. as am I.
I’m not personally from Serbia, but am of Serbian ancestry. Nice to meet you, and I hope you stick around!
…and now you all know my last name. Couldn’t have been that hard to figure out anyway, but, you know, don’t do anything crazy. (I’m not even sure what that means, but my parents are always lecturing me about giving too much info out on the internet — Hi Dad!)
This is unconscionable. When are they going to realize this is all about people? Stop the freakin’ labelling and start the loving. Isn’t that the whole idea behind WWJD? Or is it just a little catchphrase to bind their sickening, oppressive ideologies together?
It just further strengthens my point of view that no one else can tell you who you are. The Catholic church can deny membership to anyone for any reason, but I don’t think that means they aren’t Catholic. Catholicism is a choice, not a club. That label is a decision made by the person, not a group.
People can be whoever they want to be. It would be nice if the church would get hip to that.
Oops. Blockquote malfunction.
And we’re attacking gays right and left:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/23/AR2005092300402.html
School Expels Girl for Having Gay Parents
The Associated Press
Friday, September 23, 2005; 7:05 AM
ONTARIO, Calif. — A 14-year-old student was expelled from a Christian school because her parents are lesbians, the school’s superintendent said in a letter.
Shay Clark was expelled from Ontario Christian School on Thursday.
“Your family does not meet the policies of admission,” Superintendent Leonard Stob wrote to Tina Clark, the girl’s biological mother.
Stob wrote that school policy requires that at least one parent may not engage in practices “immoral or inconsistent with a positive Christian life style, such as cohabitating without marriage or in a homosexual relationship,” The Los Angeles Times reported in Friday’s edition.
Stob could not be reached for comment by the newspaper. Shay and her parents said they won’t fight the ruling.
School administrators learned of the parents’ relationship this week after Shay was reprimanded for talking to the crowd during a football game, Tina Clark said.
Clark and her partner have been together 22 years and have two other daughters, ages 9 and 19.
Oh my goodness. That is disgusting.
Henry the 8th thought that way too.
Good humor, of course.
What the hell are lesbian parents doing sending their kid to christian school?
Sometimes Christian schools are the best schools in the area. They probably want a good education for their kids.
And never rule out that these woman might be Christians themselves who want a Christian education for their children.
I had never realized until I saw the opera (Lohengrin) last year that within fifteen minutes of that famous wedding march, the bride has done the one thing her groom asked her never to do, and he has invited the entire town into their bedchamber to watch him denounce her and abandon her forever.
I’m sure “acceptable conduct” fits in there somewhere.