www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Cause of Sex Scandal in RCC

I cringe at the word "effective" celebration, because it is God who effects the Mystery, it is the Spirit who consecrates the gifts and us. So everything he does is effective, for he is God, and can do no other.

Yes of course, there is good Liturgy, and bad Liturgy. All the ministers, the priest, deacon, reader, cantor, choir, servers, congregation, etc. etc. have their responsibility and service, which coming together contributes to making Liturgy beautiful and worthy.

When I was in studies, I cringed because the focus was too much on the priest. I remember the professor at the Washington Theological Coalition to this day! "Make eye contact". "Speak with feeling". "Add introductions, occasionally changing word formulas for impact and effect". I could go on and on, because I felt it was not right, and it burned deep.

What was caused was a tyranny of the priesthood over the "Eucharistic assembly". It is utterly in his control, at his whim, to his taste, he can alter favorite phrases, command my attention, manipulate my prayer.

In such a way, he exercises such power over the Liturgical experience, that he places himself as celebrant between the people and God, and not only his face, but everything about the celebration is utterly in his power. He can interpolate himself in my spiritual relationship with God. It can help me, if Father's spirituality is like mine, his devotion appealing to me, his taste complimentary to mine.

But if it is not, his presence is an affront. I will cry "traditionalist" or "Amchurch" or "irreverent" or worse. We've been through that on this forum.

The Liturgy is God's. It is to be followed faithfully according to the book we were given at our ordination. The biggest mistake of the Roman revision is the cult of the priest/celebrant. The antidote/cure, is a more faithful restoration of all the ministries of deacon, subdeacon, reader, chanters etc. etc., and a correction of the liberality of priestly improvisation (a focus of the new directions from Rome) which have given the priest/celebrant all authority.

In the Byzantine Church, we do not use the word celebrant, because so is the deacon a celebrant, so is everyone present a celebrant and concelebrant. I think in this, the Byzantine Church has something to say.

If I were moderator of this forum, I would seriously censure this unworthy monk, for wandering grossly off topic, and so I will end my observations.

I would be happy to discuss Liturgy further, on another thread.

Elias

Dear Father Elias,

I think that talking about the issues you raise would become interesting and thought provoking discussions!

How the discussion is framed and conducted is of concern though. How do we ensure that such a discussion does not degenerate into attacks on the Latin Mass based upon personal feelings rather than a conversation carried on respectfully among believers? As you noted, we have been down another road on issues related to these topics.

Personal opinion, personal dislike and personal disgust are worthy of note. They are not proper bases for positions that lead to drawing conclusions, it seems to me.

Steve

[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Inawe ]

Steve, I think you made a very good point about personal opinions and dislikes. And Father Elias, I have heard the same things said about priests celebrating the "old Masss"..."Father so and so offers Mass so beautifully" or "let's go to Father such and such's Mass, he is fast", etc. I don't think the rite used is going to change that. I celebrated Mass according to the current Roman Missal for nearly 9 years...about half that time I celebrated facing the people and the rest of the time with my back to the people. Personally, I prefered to celebrate with my back to them as it offered less distractions. However my people prefered that I celebrate facing them, that they got more from the Liturgy that way. I had to put my personal preference aside to better serve their needs. I love the Mass currently in use in the Roman Catholic Church, but I love the Mass used by my Ukrainian Catholic Church as well..but I think to compare them is like comparing apples and oranges...they might both be fruits, but they will never look or taste the same. Just my humble opinion. Don

Father Elias,

Would that all priests were as entangled with sin as you.

I think there's an issue that is given little attention here as well. A priest who abuses, or drinks to excess, or (pick your obsession or addiction) may not just be sexually undeveloped, but SPIRITUALLY undeveloped as well.

I'm not one to say that prayer cures everything, but I rather doubt that habitual immoral sexual habits can coexist with a life rooted DEEPLY in the wellspring of prayer. How many priests get so busy with the important tasks of running a parish that they "don't have time" to spend with God? If that empty place in the heart is not constantly filled with God, humans have a tendency to try to fill it with something else.

Just my uneducated opinion.


Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Our sister Sharon, once again, has hit the nail on the head.

It is clear that a person whose life is "ordered" and disciplined to function according to Gospel principles, will have an easier time of it. When the time for prayer, reflection and examination of conscience (to use the old term) disappears, then the good habits erode.

In terms of the recent scandal, I suspect that part of the problem lay in the fact that the training these errant priests received focused more upon 'functioning' as a priest (eye contact, preaching styles, etc.) than on being a reflective and loving member of the Church community. And, I suspect, their spiritual guidance consisted of a more or less 'pro-forma' meeting with a spiritual advisor once a month or so.

While I think it would be impractical in this country now to follow the old European model of sending folks to monastic houses for their priestly and spiritual formation, I think that the second best option is to ensure that all priestly candidates be required to live and work in parishes and be directly involved with the people. Thus, they will see the true, 'everyday' realities of peoples' lives (substance abuse, spousal abuse, illness, death, mental illness, sexuality, etc.) firsthand and not just study them out of a book and lecture notes. This real exposure might address the 'immaturity' that is sometimes abrogated to priests. And, in the process, they will have to not only mature, but they will have to understand that it is prayer and reflection (and some hard knocks upside the head) that will mold them into effective servants of God and the Church.

Blessings!

Dr. John,

Do you accept the church teaching that homosexual sex is sinful? Please answer either yes or no.

Do you accept the church teaching that sex between adults and children is wrong? Please answer yes or no.

What specific actions do you suggest for the church to resolve this crisis?

Please do not dance around your answers as you have in previous posts.

Steve

Steve, what difference does it make what Dr. John believes? He is offering his take on these problems/evils and at no time have I heard him approve of what these priests have done nor have I seen him dance around the issues. I think his take of these issues are more in line with what I believe Jesus would have done...try to heal the broken person without pointing fingers..."does no one condemn you? then neither do I, go and sin no more." I used to have an old neigbor who was from the hills of Kentucky...we were talking about imperfect priests and preachers...her take on this idea was very Christlike in my opinion..."I'd rather have a sinning preacher with love in his heart, than an upright man with green persimmon juice in his veins." As I said before, if a priest is doing something illegal or a cause of public scandal, deal with him according to the law (either civil or canonical)...but anything else is between him and God. Leave him to God! Moe

I think the Catholic laity have been very wise on this issue. No one is debating that the actions of these priests is wrong. The issue is oversight and accountability. Thus the reason for such disappointment with the bishops.

Axios

Moe,

It makes a big difference what Dr. John believes. If he does not accept the teaching of the Church on sexual issues then he is not Catholic.

So it would not bother you if your priest spoke of the need to turn away from sin and to reform our lives and then after Mass went home to his gay lover? It does not bother you that he is committing the sin of homosexual sexual intercourse as well as breaking the civil laws against this horrible abomination? Is this the type of person you want spending time with your children? How can we teach them right from wrong when people like you tell them that in one's private life one may do as one pleases and nothing is sinful?

The reasons why the bishops are so soft on this issue is that a lot of them are active homosexuals. The church needs to be cleaned and such people need to be defrocked.

Steve

I beg to differ, Dr. John's beliefs are not the issue here. And it is not for you or any other person to say who is or is not a Catholic. For all I know I do have priests (and bishops) who preach the love of Christ and then go to be with their lover...whether another man or a woman, I don't care and I'm not about to pry into their private lives to see. As for my children, I have gay friends who I trust my children with and feel blessed to have such wonderful persons in their lives. They have learned a lot about love and devotion from them...more so that from many so called "good christian" folks I know. "in the end there are three things that last: faith, hope and love. And the greatest of these is love." Moe

There is no answer possible to Steve's questions because they are based upon false premises.

(It was much easier doing theology in the "old days", when young folks were educated by memorizing the Baltimore Catechism. The 'info' was just there and memorized; all you had to do was explain it through scenarios. Now, I feel like I'm teaching 10th grade theology in the Post-Vatican II era where folks have no grounding in theology, just occasional snippets gleaned from homilies or wherever.)

So, to the Baltimore Catechism: "What three things are necessary to make a sin mortal?" (All the old folks, together please "There are three things necessary to make a sin mortal. They are serious matter, sufficient reflection and full consent of the will."

Looking at the definition, two of the three components in determining the sinfulness of an action are directly dependent upon the mindset of the penitent. This is why the priest/confessor is supposed to interrogate the person in confession - in order to determine that ALL the criteria are met. If there is any doubt in the priest's mind, then the priest can go on 'presumptive sin'. (But there is the 'catch-phrase' at the end of the confessional formula: "for these sins and for all the sins of my past life ESPECIALLY THE SIN OF XXX, I am truly sorry and beg God's forgiveness." Then the priest can legitimately absolve.)

So, there is no legitimate answer to the questions posed unless there is additional information from the penitent. Perhaps you should rephrase your interrogatory to: is 'sexuality' or 'sexual activity' SERIOUS MATTER (as mentioned in the Catechism), then the answer is most likely yes. Is it a sin? Can't tell.

By the by, the Baltimore Catechism (both the lower grades blue book, and the upper grades green book) is still an official teaching catechism for the Catholic Church in the U.S. To my knowledge, it has never been abrogated. Would that more people would study it.

Blessings!

Any priest who has even opened the cover of either the Baltimore Catechism or the new Catholic Catechism knows quite well that sex is serious matter, that he has done at least some reflection before entering into such a sinful homosexual sexual relationship, and that when he entered into this sinful state he did so with full consent of will. Dr. John's argument makes sense only if the priest accidentally drank too much (and was not accustomed to strong drink) and was taken advantage of by a rapist.

It is amazing how some people preach Christ's teaching about the importance of love only to forget that He expects us to also keep His commandments.

"If you keep my commandments you will abide in my love." John 15:7 (and on every other page of the Bible)

We have an obligation to gently call those involved in homosexual sexual activity to stop this abominable behavior, acknowledge the sinfulness of it, repent and mend their ways. No amount of liberalism that there is no one who sins will do away with the Lord's teaching.

John,

Still playing games, I see. Steve asked straight forward questions and you gave the typical modernist shuffle. I'm not a novice at Theology nor am I a spring chicken. Either homosexual activity is a sin or it is not. Since the Church teaches that it is, then it is. I could go into a lengthy discussion concerning why the Church teaches this truth but there is really no need. You and I both know that it is. Play the game as best you can. Someday this nightmare will be over.

As our priest says, and he's no spring chicken either, "It is better to have two holy priests than thousands who are unholy." Amen.

I find one further bit of encouragement in the fact that young people are making choices that demonstrate that they have more character as a group than most who run the Church just now. They are choosing either a secular path or are going to Churches that actually teach something. They are running away from mainline Protestantism and the kind of "Christianity" that you more often than not reflect in your posts.

Dan Lauffer

Not all young people are running away from mainline Protestantism.

My friend, Joe Sprague, a clergyman in a mainline Protestant denomination told of his visit to a delightful Sunday morning worship service, where a once-bruised congregation is healing and displaying remarkable vitality and faithfulness. It has overcome its past division and nastiness. The renewed congregation now gathers in a full sanctuary, the past debts have been paid off, it has an alive ministry with children and young people and a discernible welcoming spirit.

May God be praised for their ability to move from division and darkness to Christian faith and renewal.

I am constantly amazed at the remonstrances of those who immediately convert discussion of 'sexuality' into a discussion of 'homosexuality', and then ignores the information presented. To wit:

"Any priest who has even opened the cover of either the Baltimore Catechism or the new Catholic Catechism knows quite well that sex is serious matter, that he has done at least some reflection before entering into such a sinful homosexual sexual relationship, and that when he entered into this sinful state he did so with full consent of will. Dr. John's argument makes sense only if the priest accidentally drank too much (and was not accustomed to strong drink) and was taken advantage of by a rapist."

Although the post refers to clergy, there is a much broader issue. The presumption is: that any time an action is committed, the person has done some reflection and that there is full consent of the will.

Sorry, the Church teaches otherwise. And the mandates on the confessor are extremely strict in this regard, including revocation of confessional faculties.

Mr. Lauffer notes: "Still playing games, I see. Steve asked straight forward questions and you gave the typical modernist shuffle."

The Baltimore Catechism was promulgated at the end of the 19th Century. Hardly a 'modernist' document. (And much of it is directly from St. Thomas' Summa Theologica.) Yet, there is no response to the actual text from the catechism. Just an innuendo that quoting from the catechism is a 'game'.

Further: "I'm not a novice at Theology nor am I a spring chicken. Either homosexual activity is a sin or it is not."

So what do you say about the prescripts of the Catechism and Canon Law and the involvement of the individual and his/her spiritual status? Calvin and the other Protestant theologians take the "either a sin or not" perspective, but this is neither Catholic nor Orthodox.

"Since the Church teaches that it is, then it is."

This is just your personal perspective and is in conflict with the canonical teaching about how the Catholic and Orthodox churches view sin. Sin is, of necessity, personal; not just a black or white judgement. Once again, the Protestant theologians John Calvin and Philip Melancthon."

Yet further: "I could go into a lengthy discussion concerning why the Church teaches this truth but there is really no need."

Actually, there is. But every time I propose canonical argumentation about official theological perspectives on sin, I get an ad-hominen response and yet another condemnation of "the sin" or of me.

Would you care to respond to the truths propounded in the Baltimore Catechism? And could you humor us by sticking strictly to the text, without going off on a tangent that proclaims that the Church teaches this or that or the other thing without providing any back up that addresses the canonical/catechetical issues.

And further: "You and I both know that it is. Play the game as best you can. Someday this nightmare will be over."

I agree that the current scandal in the Church is a nightmare. But I'm not playing a 'game', as you put it. I'm tired of individuals who make statements that reflect their own personal perspectives, opine that their perspectives represent the 'will of the Church', and then go on a type of 'jihad' against those who disagree with them, yet offer no substantial and legitimate response to the perspectives proposed.

If you are indeed no novice in theology, then be honest enough to provide an interpretation that is consistent with the teachings of the Catechisms. Without the red herring tangential issues of "we all know that this is sin" and those who don't admit it are guilty of subterfuge or dishonesty.

Blessings!

[ 06-21-2002: Message edited by: Dr John ]