www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall What's up with Archbishop Levada?

There is nothing "charitable" about proclaiming vice as virtue. Let's get real here. True Charity starts with telling the Truth Who is a Someone, not a something. And Perfect Truth talked more about the consequences of serious sin than any other New Testament Figure because eternity is at stake. Certainly, this applies to a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance per Sacred Scripture. To somehow attempt to give a tortured apology for understanding the origins of the promotion of abominable acts by not so subtly implying that they are somehow all right is absurd. Moreover, it is uncharitable in the extreme from a Catholic standpoint for salvific reasons.

The Church is supposed to be in the business of getting souls to Heaven, not hell, i.e., the only reason for its existence. In regard to the issue in question, this is not possible unless it consistently teaches that "leaving" not "living" homosexual lifestyles is paramount.

Today, much masquerades as Catholicism. This must be seen for what it is. I'm new to this forum. But I've seen enough here already to know who the lurkers are, i.e., who are the real Catholics as opposed to those who have no basic understanding of a natural common good promoting a supernatural ultimate good in the next life per the teachings of Saint Thomas Aquinas encouraged by Leo XIII in Aeterni Patris. The kindest thing that Aquinas had to say about homosexuality was that it was the "unnatural vice." It went downhill from there fast.

The comparisons between the traditional Church teaching on sins against nature vs. the post-conciliar attitude is striking when one considers Sacred Scripture and Tradition in the form of statements from the Popes, Councils, Saints, and Apologists combined with the tradition of civil legislation to show the moral chasm that has resulted when the language of �pseudo charity� replaces the language of �tough love� for salvation�s sake. The result being that the necessary feelings of revulsion toward those proudly trumpeting their sodomite tendencies are no longer there opening the door for a misplaced compassion that such individuals do not deserve.

There is a huge difference between an ontological dignity to which all are entitled by virtue of being made in the image and likeness of God, and a moral dignity as a function of being endowed with an intellect and will whereby good can be accepted and evil rejected. Moral dignity does not exist for sodomites, a distinction that the post-conciliar Church never makes using language that would have us erroneously believe that there exists something called the homosexual person, a concept which turns Christian anthropology on its head making God, Who is Perfect Good, out to be a liar in creating man with a built-in one way ticket to hell in complete ignorance of the effect of the concupiscence due to Original Sin.

You want to know why there are "gay pride" parades. Look to the devil and the fall, i.e., Original Sin.

Words have consequences with a litany of saints to include St. John Chrysostom telling us that �A murderer only separates the soul from the body, whereas these (sodomites) destroy the soul inside the body.� This was clearly understood by
Saints Peter, Jude, Pius V, Basil of Cesarea, Augustine, Aquinas, John Chrysostom, Gregory the Great, Peter Damian, Albert the Great, Bonaventure, Catherine of Sienna, Bernardine of Sienna, Peter Canisius, and the councils of Ancyra, Toledo, Nablus, and Third Lateran.

Gary,

As you've been able to discern so much in such a brief time, perhaps you could enlighten the rest of us as to just who the "lurkers" are. And are the "lurkers" the "real Catholics" or the other folk whom you describe?

Since, to the minds of internet forum junkies, "lurker" is the name ordinarily ascribed to those who read a forum, but don't post, I'm curious as to this newly-coined usage.

Many years,

Neil

djs- Actually, adultery is considered an offense worthy of dismissal in the military...
I don't mean to be glib, in fact I have great sympathy for those burdened by disordered desires. It is not a temptation to which I am subject, but there are plenty of temptations that I do find alluring, so there is a fundamental solidarity among us sinners.
I have friends who wrestle with same-sex attraction, and I have come to see what a difficult position they are in. Further, they say that even orthodox ministries to gays have proven to be avenues of temptation.
And probably if there were adulterer pride or masturbator pride marches there would be a visceral reaction.
-Daniel

Dear Gary,

I agree with you and I'm happy that you join with me in promoting a married priesthood as one way to help solve the issues you mention.

Alex

This has nothing to do with a "married priesthood." Reference the very good reasons not to per SACERDOTALIS CAELIBATUS (Paul VI), and the writings of Benedict XVI, and in particular, the example of Jesus Christ Himself, per Sacred Scripture, and the African Councils, as so eloquently refenced in the Case for Clerical Celibacy by Alfons Maria Cardinal Stickler.

There was an Anglican convert to Catholicism in my old parish in Kansas who publically lamented the fact that he was a married priest, saying unequivocally, that he did not have time for his family because his family in Christ's eyes was much bigger.

This is another topic having nothing to do with the subject at hand.

And as for the term "lurkers", my usage of it, per Websters, is to indicate a movement "inconspicuously" by hiding under the mantle of a Catholic forum while subtly condoning non-Catholic activities. Identifying who's been doing this is easily left to the reader by seeing who justify the promotion of aberrant lifestyles in this instance.

Dear Gary,

I'm so sorry!

I thought that since you had a Byzantine icon in your avatar, that you were in support of our tradition of married priests.

My grandfather was a married priest and I've several relatives who are - and 14 others who were, all with doctorates in Catholic theology.

We BC's have a better appreciation for a healthy view of sexuality and Catholic morality, I believe along with many others, due to the great example set by married priests among us.

For some reason, these issues of Catholic morality just aren't so pronounced among BC's as they seem to be among modern Roman Catholics.

I see that you are a Latin Catholic. I know many Latins, including priests, who openly condone what the Catholic Church condemns formally as sinful activity pertaining to the exercise of sexuality.

So how does your posting here contribute to our understanding of Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy?

Alex

I believe some aspects brought up by St. Louis X need to be addressed since these were made on an Eastern forum.

The corpus of patristic literature does not even mention celibate priesthood until well into the 4th century. All of the previous works (Irenaeus, Ignatius of Antioch) were by married men (who were also often bishops). Marital relations by clergy are, however, discussed well before the 4th century.

Married clergy was a common practice even in the West up to the 13th century. One cannot turn away from 1300 years of practice and ignore it did not exist, and produce saints.

Cardinal Stickler's work you mention has been critiqued by the likes of Father Taft and others far more knowledgable than myself, and has been found wanting historically. I very much like the Cardinal, and admire his savy with respect to tradition, but this was clearly a polemical work with a minimum of supporting patristic evidence.

Also, since I am from Kansas, can you be more specific on the former Anglican priest? Every, I repeat every, married priest I know while balancing a great pastoral burden along with family life has NEVER regretted receiving the indelible gifts of the priesthood. And here I speak of Orthodox, Greek Catholic, and married Roman priests who have come over from the Anglicans or Lutherans.

Regarding Paul VI, there are also works where he is quite salutory about the ancient and venerable practices of the Eastern Churches, including recognizing their different practices of voluntary celibacy.

And Rome has spoken. Quite loudly. There are dozens of former Lutherans and Episcopalians serving as holy priests at the Altar. Some of these are far more respectful of guarding their Catholic identity and truth than hosts of celibate revisionist diocesan priests.

From St. Ignatius of Antioch's Epistle to the Philadelphians:

Long live the Married Catholic Priesthood!

Alex

To embrace celibacy is an act of selfless love for Christ. A priest acts in persona Christi, in the person of Christ. What better way to do this than by emulating Christ�s example! The problem is not celibacy, which was encouraged by Saint Paul, and Christ Himself. The problem is that those who are inclined to sexually perverse acts have been admitted to seminary, where in many instances, such an inclination was, not only deemed perfectly acceptable, but encouraged.

The basic reason as given in the epistles of Paul is that man as priest cannot have two masters. It was reported that the Catholic Church in the former U.S.S.R. survived expressly because its priests were celibate and not subject to the threat to families from the oppressive communist regimes.

Reference the following excerpted article that appeared in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette from Philip Jenkins

PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania, MARCH 11, 2002 (Zenit.org).- Philip Jenkins, a Penn State University professor of history and religious studies

* * *

�My research of cases over the past 20 years indicates no evidence whatever that Catholic or other celibate clergy are any more likely to be involved in misconduct or abuse than clergy of any other denomination -- or indeed, than nonclergy. However determined news media may be to see this affair as a crisis of celibacy, the charge is just unsupported.

Literally every denomination and faith tradition has its share of abuse cases, and some of the worst involve non-Catholics. Every mainline Protestant denomination has had scandals aplenty, as have Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jews, Buddhists, Hare Krishnas -- and the list goes on. One Canadian Anglican (Episcopal) diocese is currently on the verge of bankruptcy as a result of massive lawsuits caused by decades of systematic abuse, yet the Anglican church does not demand celibacy of its clergy.�

Dear Gary,

So what is your view of our tradition of wonderful married priests with great families who are involved in parish life?

When given a chance, my wife chooses to speak to the married priest rather than the celibate priest in our parish.

And our Patriarch Joseph Slipyj was all for celibacy until the Soviet invasion when he saw how married priests had the support of their families in defending the Catholic faith and union with Rome - while he saw celibate priests he knew quickly chuck their faith in.

Alex

My view is that receiving Holy Orders is the highest calling of man who will acting in the person of Christ. Toward that end, following the example of Christ as encouraged in Sacred Scripture is the ideal.

You take an adversial defensive attitude to the concept of celibate priests because you feel that their example is sadly lacking. Yes, it has. But the reasons for it are not celibacy, which is what has been inferred on this thread, and why I addressed it. The reasons for it are the allowance of unchecked dissent from magisterial teaching on faith and morals in the ignorance that discpline is one of the highest, if not the highest form of love.

There are any number of celibate priests who were exemplars in terms of their "special" dedication to Christ alone, which, I think, does not speak of not understanding sexuality as well as the East, as was pridefully stated on this site.

You talk about the tradition of married priests. I talk about Jesus Christ Who was not married. In regard to your criticism of Cardinal Stickler, I can just as easily quote you theological Catholic lumenaries, clergy and laity alike, who would be in strong disagreement with you.

I think to make the sacrifice of celibacy following Christ's example says something special about the individual doing so. It is directly following in the footsteps of Our Lord Whose family is the entirety of mankind, with a very special concern for the salvation of as many as who have eyes to see, and ears to hear.

You want to talk about Eastern Tradition. I want to talk about Jesus Christ who founded the Catholic Church.

Dear Gary,

In case you haven't noticed, this is an EASTERN board.

I have celibate priests in my family too - are you saying I'm against them and other celibate priests because we have a tradition of married priests?

Then, in that case, it is you who are seeing things in black and white - and are being adversarial.

And do you think that because we are for our Particular Eastern Catholic Churches (which has not been well treated by historic, traditional Roman Catholicism, I might add), then this is somehow against preaching about our Lord, God and Saviour, Jesus Christ and His Church?

Do you feel we must submerge our Particular ecclesial traditions so that Jesus Christ might be better witnessed to here?

Alex

re: Gary's definition of "lurkers": Can you clarify for us, St Louie, if you are a member of a traditionalist parish which uses the indult Mass or do you belong to one of the other outfits [SSPX, etc]?? Hmm?
just wondering, Daniel

This is really a case study. You're talking to a man who is trying to help out the Metropolitan of the Eparchy of Pittsburgh and one of his priest in founding a Byzantine Catholic Church in State College, PA. I talked to His Grace about this when he attended the 100th anniversary of Saint John the Baptist Byzantine Catholic Church in Hawk Run. This is necessary to support two other parishes in surrounding communities,which no one wants to see shut down.

I going to be perfectly blunt with you, Orthodox,my son was confirmed in the Byzantine rite because, for all practical purposes, the Latin Rite is dead. It's been protestantized into oblivion, and I will have no more of it. I no longer recognize the Catholic Church of my youth. It's been subtly stolen from me, which is why I now attend Divine Liturgies of Saint John Chrysostem. Lex credendi, lex orandi, is more than just a pithy phrase. If the Mass changes on an hourly basis, why not the teachings of the faith. That is the conclusion easily reached by the man-in-the-pew thanks to the work of the dissidents who are destroying the Church from within.

I tire of seeing wannabee priestesses in the sanctuary and layman with unconsecrated hands touch the Body and Blood of Christ.

I don't appreciate your tone, nor your confrontational accusations, which are uncalled for.

It was erroneously assumed that I was advocating a non-celibate priesthood,which, for very good reason, that I've given, I cannot do. What I was doing was responding in courtesy to a thread about Archbishop Levada, i.e., his problems, which someone asked about. At least I thought I was before you attempted to give me a lesson in Catholicism,which I really don't need, thank you.

In fact about the only thing that you've succeeded in doing is turning me off the Eastern Church. I hope that makes you happy.

I been very clear about my position about celibacy and so have many popes, in particular, the ones that I referenced.

I see no problem with having a tradition started by Jesus Christ, which was a celibate priesthood, again for very good reasons as many Catholic apologists to especially include high ranking clergy have given.

I'll tell you what really concerns me. And that is getting me, my family, and as many others as I can to Heaven instead of hell. I was baptized a Latin Rite Catholic and I will die a Latin Rite Catholic. I pray that the tradition that you guard with such affection will not be trashed as was mine. Be wary of new translations of your prayers. It will start there!

And iconophile, I don't have to clarify anything for you other than what I have posted to date, which I have. Frankly, I don't believe that it should matter to you one whit about whether individuals attend indult Masses, in particular, since an indult is not required per traditional Catholic teaching, or SSPX Masses since Rome has said that Catholics may attend SSPX Masses and receive the Sacraments from SSPX priests if they so desire.

Dear stlouisix:

Straw man.
AFAIK, no one on this forum had made any such proclamation. Get real indeed.