Ellen Goodman has struck again. This time she's off on one of her favorite topics, the Catholic Church, and What Is Wrong With It. Of course she chooses to discuss The Doc (I know, I know, some of you are sick of this....then skip this post!). It's a syndicated column that ran in several papers around Ohio, and can easily be found on the internet or the Boston Globe website (she's a Globe columnist). That is, if you feel like stomaching the whole thing.
In the words of Love Story , "Where do I begin?" Let's dissect, shall we? Not that there's much to it. Essentially she says that the Church used to believe that homosexuality was biological; people "d[id] not choose their homosexual condition." But now the Church is banning not just those who are actively gay, but those who have homosexual "tendencies". And this means that "a drunk or an ex-con is OK; a chaste, gay seminarian is not."
Let's stop there. First of all, I didn't know the Church had changed its mind on it being biological, or at the very least something a person didn't choose. If they have, I'm late to the party. But Goodman's wrong when she says that a "chaste, gay seminarian is not" OK for the priesthood. In fact, that's not what the document says. As I've said almost ad nauseum the document is reaffirming the idea that priests must be celibate and faithful to Church teaching if they are to be priests. This isn't new. If you're gay and celibate and fully believe what the Church teaches and tend to teach and defend that as a priest, then come on board. That's fine.
Goodman also says that we're going against nature and saying that the Church has labeled homosexuality as "intrinscly disordered", thereby denying the biological angle. I don't know about that. I'd say that quite a few people have an intrinsicly disordered sense of many things, including alcohol, sex, money, take your pick. That's how we have addicts in the world. There's evidence that alcoholism may be biological. That's an intrinsic disorder. Instrinsic means "belonging naturally"; if it's in your genes to be an alcoholic, then that's what's in your naturally. You didn't change it. It just happened. But that doesn't mean that you're cut out to be an AA teacher. If you're addicted to money and profit then one probably shouldn't work in a brokerage house where those things are readily available for the taking. If you're a food addict then working in a restaurant isn't the best idea for you. If you're a homosexual and not able or ready to be chaste, then you shouldn't be a priest. Same with heterosexual men. This isn't denying biology. It's just saying that maybe this profession isn't for you.
She ends with "the new pope's Vatican has proclaimed homosexuals themselves as the sin. The case is closed, and so are the doors of the seminary." That's just complete and utter nonsense. B XVI has said no such thing, and neither has the Curia or the Magesterium. The only thing this document says is that if you're practicing homosexual practices and are unwilling to be chaste, or a seminarian who actively supports gay culture and lifestyle, then you're going against the Church's practice and should not be in a position to teach on Church doctrine. It's like hiring a math teacher who doesn't believe in addition. It just doesn't make sense. But if you want to be a priest, you are chaste and celibate, and you believe what the Church teaches and are willing to protect and defend it, then come on in. We could use you. Why does the Left have to make this so hard?