Vatican City, Nov 4, 2017 / 12:00 am (CNA/EWTN News).-
Last weekend, Pope Francis delivered a keynote speech to a major conference on the future of the European Union. Although the Pope is often characterized as a staunch progressive, his Oct. 28 speech was a reminder that his views on life, marriage, and sexuality go beyond the stereotypes with which he is often characterized.
During the speech, the Pope spoke out against abortion, and said the Christian understanding of the family can serve as a model on which the European continent can base its identity as it faces a changing and uncertain future.
Speaking to participants in the Oct. 27-29 conference “(Re)Thinking Europe: A Christian Contribution to the Future of the European Project,” Pope Francis stressed that the family, “as the primordial community,” is fundamental to understanding Europe’s increasingly multicultural and multiethnic identity.
In the family, “diversity is valued and at the same time brought into unity,” Francis said, explaining that the family “is the harmonious union of the differences between man and woman, which becomes stronger and more authentic to the extent that it is fruitful, capable of opening itself to life and to others.”
Likewise, he said secular communities are also “alive” when they are capable “of openness, embracing the differences and gifts of each person while at the same time generating new life, development, labor, innovation and culture.”
He also pointed to the low birth rate in Europe, lamenting the fact that there are so few children because “all too many were denied the right to be born.”
These comments, which echo the critiques of European secularism often proffered by Benedict XVI, might surprise those who have, since the beginning of his pontificate, painted Francis as being untethered by Catholic doctrine.
Yet while the Pope has often seemed to take a progressive approach to liturgy and has been outspoken on environmental issues, he has also been equally loud when defending Catholic doctrine on moral issues like abortion and homosexuality in the public square.
Of course, there is still significant internal debate surrounding the interpretation of Chapter 8 of his 2015 apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which addresses the Church’s response to divorced and civilly remarried Catholics.
In fact, this week the debate flared up again when news came out that Father Thomas Weinandy, OFM, Cap., a member of the Vatican’s International Theological Commission, resigned from his position as a consultant to the USCCB’s Committee on Doctrine after publishing a 5-page letter he had written to Pope Francis calling for a correction to the “chronic confusion” of his pontificate, which the priest said “fosters within the faithful a growing unease.”
The letter, which charged that Pope Francis has downplayed the importance of doctrine, created confusion, and appointed questionable bishops, made waves throughout the Catholic world, especially given Fr. Weinandy’s prominent role within the USCCB and the Pope’s theological commission.
But while Francis seems to invite debate on this and other points, he demonstrated last Saturday that he does so while calling for respect for the Catholic worldview in secular culture, especially regarding the family.
Who am I to judge?
It was early in his pontificate, on a return flight from World Youth Day in Rio de Janeiro in 2013, that Pope Francis famously responded to a question about homosexuality in the priesthood with “who am I to judge?”
In some ways, the question became a lens through which his pontificate is often viewed, especially in the media.
Since 2013, the “who-am-I-to-judge Pope” has spoken out frequently on the need to be more welcoming of people with homosexual orientation, and has insisted on the need to use language reflecting welcome, rather than a closed door.
During his September 2015 visit to the United States, images of Pope Francis hugging a gay man circulated on the internet after he met with the man and his partner in Washington D.C. The man was a former student who had written to ask for a meeting, and the Pope accepted.
And while Pope Francis’ approach to homosexuality has been depicted by some as a deviation from the Church’s doctrine, and hailed by others as a step in the right direction, his speech to E.U. leaders is a reminder that he aims to promote a worldview guided by Catholic doctrine, rather than contradicting it.
A Catholic Worldview
Looking back throughout Francis’ pontificate, his speech on Saturday was the latest among dozens of times he has spoken on behalf of the role of the traditional family, the sacredness of human life, or the Church’s teaching on sexuality in the public square.
Some of these occasions, just to name a few, are as follows:
1. In a 2014 audience with members of the German-born, international Schoenstatt movement marking the 100th anniversary of their founding, Pope Francis said the family, in the Christian understanding, was being attacked.
“The family is being hit, the family is being struck and the family is being bastardized,” he said, noting that in the modern context, “you can call everything family, right?”
He said contemporary society has “devalued” the sacrament of marriage by turning it into a social rite and removing the most essential element, which is union with God. “So many families are divided, so many marriages broken,” he said, adding that frequently, there is “such relativism in the concept of the sacrament of marriage.”
2. On the flight back from his trip to Georgia and Azerbaijan a year ago, in October 2016, the Pope was asked about the possibility of biological roots to homosexuality and transgender identities.
Pope Francis said that those who struggle with sexuality and gender identity must be “accompanied as Jesus accompanies them,” and Jesus “surely doesn’t tell them ‘go away because you are homosexual,’” he said.
But Francis also pointed to the “wickedness which today is done in the indoctrination of gender theory” that is now frequently being taught in schools, and which he said “is against the (nature of) things.”
Pastoral accompaniment “is what Jesus would do today,” he said, but asked journalists to “please don’t say: ‘the Pope sanctifies transgenders.’…Because I see the covers of the papers.” Gender theory, he said, is “a moral problem. It’s a human problem and it must be resolved…with the mercy of God, with the truth.”
During the same trip, the Pope gave a lengthy, off-the-cuff speech to priests, seminarians and pastoral workers in which he said “the whole world is at war trying to destroy marriage,” not so much with weapons, “but with ideas…(there are) certain ideologies that destroy marriage. So we need to defend ourselves from ideological colonization.”
3. In his environmental encyclical Laudato Si, published in June 2015, Pope Francis condemned abortion, population control and transgenderism.
Regarding gender, the Pope said that, like creation, “man too has a nature that he must respect and that he cannot manipulate at will. ”
Further, he said that “valuing one’s own body in its femininity or masculinity is necessary if I am going to be able to recognize myself in an encounter with someone who is different. In this way we can joyfully accept the specific gifts of another man or woman, the work of God the Creator, and find mutual enrichment.”
He also said that to protect nature is “incompatible with the justification of abortion,” and that it is “clearly inconsistent” to combat human trafficking or protect endangered species while being indifferent to the choice of many people “to destroy another human being deemed unwanted.”
Francis also lamented that “instead of resolving the problems of the poor and thinking of how the world can be different, some can only propose a reduction in the birth rate.”
“Demographic growth is fully compatible with an integral and shared development,” he said, adding that to blame a growing population for poverty and an unequal distribution of resources rather than the “extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues.”
4. In February 2015, the Pope praised Slovakia, which had voted against a referendum to legalize same-sex “marriage,” voicing his appreciation “to the entire Slovak Church, encouraging everyone to continue their efforts in defense of the family, the vital cell of society.”
Defying stereotypes
The Pope has made more statements along the same lines over the past few years in general audiences, as well as in homilies, speeches and letters, advocating for public respect for the Church’s position on life, marriage, and family.
When the Pope spelled out his vision for the Christian contribution to the continent of Europe on Saturday, he made it clear that his moral and political vision is one based on the Church’s longstanding teaching on the family.
Pope Francis can be hard to pin down at times, and the resulting “gray area” often leads to stereotype – which is why he is so frequently the subject of caricature, rather than serious study. But caricatures of Francis inevitably miss the mark.
On Saturday, Pope Francis proved this by again reminding Europe of its roots, and of the importance of the family and of Christianity to those roots, showing himself to be a leader who, instead of falling into stereotypes, defies them.
[…]
“celibacy is not the cause”
No, Cardinal, but homosexuality IS the cause. Say it loud and proud.
Quote: “O’Malley stated that he has “never seen any serious studies that have indicated that celibacy and sexual abuse is related.”
This is truly sad. It appears that those people responsible for doing something re: abuse have never even GOOGLED the subject. The first google “studies of connection between celibacy and sexual abuse” gives:
2023 – ‘In Defense of Married Priesthood: A Sociotheological Investigation of Catholic Clerical Celibacy’, Chapter 6 Celibacy, Sexual Abuse, and Married Priesthood: Exploring the Sociological Connections (by Vivencio O. Ballano, Associate Professor V of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology).
And more, more and more, of papers and books. Of course, since Cardinal O’Malley does not define what “a serious study” entails he can claim that those works are not serious.
Sexual abuse in the Church is not just an abuse of children; it is also an abuse of nuns, lay women and even men (especially young) – an abuse of those who is an easy target – so I propose to treat it as “sexual abuse within the Church”. From what I have studied a pattern emerges, among those who become priests:
– Those with a vocation of both priesthood and celibacy (their (either) sexual orientation is sublimated)
– Those with a vocation of priesthood but without a true vocation of celibacy
– Those who become priest to cover their emotional deficiency and/or sexual orientation
The first group, obviously, is the happiest in their vocation. They are extremely unlikely to abuse.
The second will suffer and most will “slip off” having affairs, harming themselves and their lovers. They desperately want an emotional connection and intimacy. Some of those priests would leave priesthood and marry.
The third group is the most troublesome. Being undeveloped emotionally, they treat others as mere tools for their satisfaction. They crave power and sex and not intimacy; they are immature so they cannot understand that love is not only about sex so they practice sex without an attachment. This is why abusing children is OK for some of that group. This is also why:
Quote: “I don’t see any relationship, [between celibacy and criminal sexual abuse]” she said. “Sexual relationships with children is a crime and the ones who commit this have a problem, which is related to their psychological state of mind.”
is very strange, to put it mildly.
Yes, it is a crime; yes, a person who does it has a problem related to their psyche BUT their psyche is attracted to priesthood because it perfectly matches the needs of their psyche. A compulsory celibacy will cover their psychological immaturity and (in some cases) even perversions; furthermore, it will give them an air of a superiority, angelic-like state; it will give them a power over everyone and so on. All that is perfect for their psychological needs.
From my experience, the third group tends to constitute about a half of priests. Hence, while I would never say “celibacy breeds abusers”, I must say that compulsory celibacy of priests coupled with position of superiority breeds an air charged with suppressed (not sublimated) libido in which something bad will inevitably happen.
Finally, the most mature and balances priests I have met came to priesthood late in life, after thirty-five-forty. They had professions which demanded close dealing with various people so they knew how to connect.
NB: I do not claim to know the correct proportion of three groups. I am from a diocese with a very rich history of abuse so it is probably why I have seen stunningly many priests along a narcissistic spectrum. Neither I am saying that all priests in the second group would engage in affairs. Finally, the majority of the third group tend to act out their sexual urges in a covert/cerebral way which, in my opinion, is spiritually very damaging, very much along the line of Cardinal Fernandez treaties (forgot the name of the book, a perversion of Catholic mysticism).
If celibacy is not a relevant variable in the study of clergy sexual abuse, then why is there so much disparity between the incidence of abuse by deacons vs those of the presbytery? And, again, if celibacy is not an issue, why is there such a disparity between the incidence of abuse between clergy of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches and those of the Roman Catholic Church?
Celibacy is not the cause of the heinous sexual abuse crisis , the failure to Love, to respect, protect, and defend the inherent Dignity of every beloved son and daughter is.
It is not The Faithful who are responsible for the heinous abuse crisis, The Faithful hold fast to The Deposit Of Faith and thus to Christ’s teaching on sexual morality.
It’s unrealistic to base an assessment of priests’ celibacy from the perspective of a diocesan onlooker or two experiences. A wider scope of experience, living with priests here and abroad would provide a fuller data based resource to compare with our own experience as priest.
Celibacy was never intended to be easy, or necessarily a form of sublimation of sexual desire buried somewhere in the subconscious [not all are John of the Cross]. It’s pure and simply said a sacrifice. One in which our real, existential desires of Man for women. It’s a life of temptation, prayer, negation, and emotional physical suffering. The way of the cross.
Best measure of this is Paul the Apostle who suffered a thorn in the flesh sent by Satan. Paul suffered physically throughout his priesthood and bore it with great courage. A thorn in the flesh indicates sensual suffering. Likely sexual desire and human weakness. Physical pain would strengthen his faith, sexual weakness discourages. Aquinas thought the same regarding the great Apostle. As do I. Christ’s grace suffices. His power more manifest in our weakness.
JimmyM identified the root of sexual abuse in our Church. One which Cdl O’Malley I’m confident is aware must realistically come to grips with. The significant presence of homosexuals in the priesthood.
And then, in the United States, there’s the Report John Jay College of Criminal Justice which found that 85 percent of the sexual abuse cases victimized older boys and were homosexual in origin—not pedophiliac.
LOOKING BACK, as we approach the 50th anniversary of the “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics” (December 19, 1975), we might recall moments in another Dark Age. Consider the peasant wife whose dirt-farmer husband has finally despaired and committed suicide. Before the insights of abnormal psychology involving impaired free will, the suffering wife was told by the local padre that “God has sent him straight to hell for all eternity.”
FAST FORWARD to today’s Dark Age. Instead of “listening” to the findings of relevant gnome research, and the role of early sexual abuse, of abusive or absentee fathers, and of the slippery slope of even pre-teen sexual experimentation within a porn culture, and altered brain chemistry…instead of such considerations, another cleric misinforms the homosexual that “God who made you that way.”
It’s almost as if some successor of the Apostles should write something or other to counsel respect and compassion, but to not omit something like this, “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective evil.”
Wait, what? Building on the 1975 Declaration, Ratzinger already said exactly this in his 1986 “Letter to Bishops of the Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons” (n. 3). At least the Synod expunged the term “LGBTQ” from its Final Report.
SUMMARY: as a corrective to pastoral and institutional amnesia and worse, maybe court-jester Jiminy Cricket James Martin can be sent forth to find himself a hobby other than as photo-op/activist consultor to the Vatican Secretariat on Communications. Yes?