"What St. Paul's profound insights teach us is that sex is not an accidental characteristic of man and woman. A human person without sex is a strange abstraction. Sex entails the very identity of each person; sex plunges to the deepest mystery of each human person. St. Paul indicates this reality when he affirms that sexual sins involve persons up to the depth of their beings. He makes a sharp distinction between sins committed outside the body, i.e., outside the depths of one's being, and those committed against one's body, i.e., against what is destined for union with God as his temple and for resurrection and glorification with Christ. Hence the sexes, and the vocations pertaining thereto, are not interchangeable. Each person is called to serve God and his fellowman, accepting gladly the sex with which one is endowed and the vocation attached to that sex.
The Dutch scholar Buijlendijk has expertly unmasked a modern error concerning the sexes. In his book Woman he says that it is only at an embryonic state of modern 'feminism' that it is naively supposed that equality of women to men means women must do all things men usually do. This error fails to honor women for it neglects their positive, unique contribution to human society. Indeed, under the guise of advancing women to equality with men, this false principle makes a final attempt to subject women completely to the tyranny of purely masculine criteria.
Women cannot be made 'copy-cat' men without degrading them by unnaturally robbing them of their femininity. A bogus masculinity does not honor or liberate women. Woman is honored and left free when she is genuinely accepted as an integral woman with all the characteristic charms of femininity. For woman contributes to human society what she alone can contribute with consummate excellence - the mothering, nurturing and training of the human family through tender love. It is the sin of sham modernity to subject women to the imperialism of the egalitarians. This would destroy the identity, the very humanity, of woman, both of which are linked mysteriously to her femininity." (Father Vincent P. Miceli, S.J., The Antichrist).
A bogus masculinity does not honor or liberate women. Bearing this in mind, examine the photos taken at Saint Michael's Parish in East Longmeadow, Massachusetts during the Easter Season. See here.
Does Father James Scahill accept the Church's teaching as expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, No. 4, that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful?
What do you think?
Related reading here.
Showing posts with label Ordination of Women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ordination of Women. Show all posts
Friday, May 07, 2010
Monday, July 13, 2009
Father John Dietzen on ordaining homosexual men to the priesthood
In his latest "Questions and Answers" column, Father John Dietzen answers a question from a reader in New York, "Can the Catholic Church ordain homosexual men to the priesthood? Some fellow parishioners say, What's the difference? If they do their job and remain celibate it's not a matter of contention. Others say it is an issue because the person is not whole, is not reconciled in this important part of his personality, has set God aside in his life and would be a negative example blocking God's grace for others. What is your answer?
Father's response: "First, I need to say that this second description and judgment of homosexuality in men (or women) is questionable, to put it mildly. Surely it does not reflect the attitude of the church, which teaches that homosexuals do not choose their condition and must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity, and without discrimination. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358). To declare that homosexual persons have set aside God, are not reconciled in their physical makeup and block God's grace to others is at best a rash judgment and, furthermore, does not fit experience....To answer your question, a Vatican instruction on admission of men with homosexual tendencies to seminaries and holy orders, dated Nov. 29, 2005, prohibits men with 'deep-seated homosexual tendencies' from entering the seminary. The precise meaning of this phrase was not spelled out, apparently leaving it to bishops and seminary authorities to interpret it more specifically. And many have done so...It will require time and experience to learn how the prohibition should work out in practice."
What of this? Let's begin with Father Dietzen's citation of No. 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Father Dietzen (and this is an old story*) fails to cite the entire paragraph. Yes, we must accept homosexual persons with "respect, compassion and sensitivity." But we're also told in 2358 that the homosexual inclination is "objectively disordered." And this paragraph does not say that homosexual persons must be accepted "without discrimination." Rather, it states clearly, "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." What's the point I'm trying to make? Not all discrimination is unjust. No one has a right to Holy Orders. As I explained back in 2001, in the pages of The Wanderer:
"On October 1, 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an instruction entitled, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Pastoral Service for Homosexual Persons, signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II. In this Instruction, Cardinal Ratzinger writes, 'It is necessary to point out that the particular inclination of a homosexual person, though not a sin in itself, nevertheless constitutes a more or less strong tendency to an intrinsically evil behavior from the moral standpoint. For this reason, the very inclination should be considered as objectively disordered.' (No. 3).
This would appear to be especially significant since Canon 1040 of the Code of Canon Law states that: 'Persons who are affected by a perpetual impediment, which is called an irregularity, or a simple impediment, are prevented from receiving orders.' Now, irregularities arise either from defect (ex defectu) or from crime (ex delicto). It seems clear to me that a homosexual inclination, which Cardinal Ratzinger has referred to as 'objectively disordered,' constitutes an irregularity ex defectu. In fact, when asked by a Bishop if it is licit to confer priestly ordination to men with manifest homosexual tendencies, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments replied with a letter signed by Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez which stated that, 'Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.'"
A person with a homosexual tendency "is not..fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders." And yet, Father Dietzen tells us that "It will require time and experience to learn how the prohibition should work out in practice." Is Father Dietzen suggesting that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments is wrong? Such would appear to be the case.
Perhaps the Catholic News Service should find another priest to write the "Questions and Answers" column?
Father's response: "First, I need to say that this second description and judgment of homosexuality in men (or women) is questionable, to put it mildly. Surely it does not reflect the attitude of the church, which teaches that homosexuals do not choose their condition and must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity, and without discrimination. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 2358). To declare that homosexual persons have set aside God, are not reconciled in their physical makeup and block God's grace to others is at best a rash judgment and, furthermore, does not fit experience....To answer your question, a Vatican instruction on admission of men with homosexual tendencies to seminaries and holy orders, dated Nov. 29, 2005, prohibits men with 'deep-seated homosexual tendencies' from entering the seminary. The precise meaning of this phrase was not spelled out, apparently leaving it to bishops and seminary authorities to interpret it more specifically. And many have done so...It will require time and experience to learn how the prohibition should work out in practice."
What of this? Let's begin with Father Dietzen's citation of No. 2358 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Father Dietzen (and this is an old story*) fails to cite the entire paragraph. Yes, we must accept homosexual persons with "respect, compassion and sensitivity." But we're also told in 2358 that the homosexual inclination is "objectively disordered." And this paragraph does not say that homosexual persons must be accepted "without discrimination." Rather, it states clearly, "Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." What's the point I'm trying to make? Not all discrimination is unjust. No one has a right to Holy Orders. As I explained back in 2001, in the pages of The Wanderer:
"On October 1, 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published an instruction entitled, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Pastoral Service for Homosexual Persons, signed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II. In this Instruction, Cardinal Ratzinger writes, 'It is necessary to point out that the particular inclination of a homosexual person, though not a sin in itself, nevertheless constitutes a more or less strong tendency to an intrinsically evil behavior from the moral standpoint. For this reason, the very inclination should be considered as objectively disordered.' (No. 3).
This would appear to be especially significant since Canon 1040 of the Code of Canon Law states that: 'Persons who are affected by a perpetual impediment, which is called an irregularity, or a simple impediment, are prevented from receiving orders.' Now, irregularities arise either from defect (ex defectu) or from crime (ex delicto). It seems clear to me that a homosexual inclination, which Cardinal Ratzinger has referred to as 'objectively disordered,' constitutes an irregularity ex defectu. In fact, when asked by a Bishop if it is licit to confer priestly ordination to men with manifest homosexual tendencies, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments replied with a letter signed by Jorge Cardinal Medina Estevez which stated that, 'Ordination to the diaconate and the priesthood of homosexual men or men with homosexual tendencies is absolutely inadvisable and imprudent and, from the pastoral point of view, very risky. A homosexual person, or one with a homosexual tendency is not, therefore, fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders.'"
A person with a homosexual tendency "is not..fit to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders." And yet, Father Dietzen tells us that "It will require time and experience to learn how the prohibition should work out in practice." Is Father Dietzen suggesting that the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments is wrong? Such would appear to be the case.
Perhaps the Catholic News Service should find another priest to write the "Questions and Answers" column?
* See here for example.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
The Bishops have spoken: Will Patricia Warren abide by their teaching?
The Committee on Doctrine of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a document entitled "Guidelines For Evaluating Reiki As An Alternative Therapy." In this document, the Committee on Doctrine says (in part):
"Reiki lacks scientific credibility. It has not been accepted by the scientific and medical communities as an effective therapy. Reputable scientific studies attesting to the efficacy of Reiki are lacking, as is a plausible scientific explanation as to how it could possibly be efficacious. The explanation of the efficacy of Reiki depends entirely on a particular view of the world as permeated by this "universal life energy" (Reiki) that is subject to manipulation by human thought and will. Reiki practitioners claim that their training allows one to channel the "universal life energy" that is present in all things. This "universal life energy," however, is unknown to natural science. As the presence of such energy has not been observed by means of natural science, the justification for these therapies necessarily must come from something other than science.
Reiki and the Healing Power of Christ
Some people have attempted to identify Reiki with the divine healing known to
Christians. They are mistaken. The radical difference can be immediately seen in the fact that for the Reiki practitioner the healing power is at human disposal. Some teachers want to avoid this implication and argue that it is not the Reiki practitioner personally who effects the healing, but the Reiki energy directed by the divine consciousness. Nevertheless, the fact remains that for Christians the access to divine healing is by prayer to Christ as Lord and Savior, while the essence of Reiki is not a prayer but a technique that is passed down from the "Reiki Master" to the pupil, a technique that once mastered will reliably produce the anticipated results. Some practitioners attempt to Christianize Reiki by adding a prayer to Christ, but this does not affect the essential nature of Reiki. For these reasons, Reiki and other similar therapeutic techniques cannot be identified with what Christians call healing by divine grace.
The difference between what Christians recognize as healing by divine grace and Reiki
therapy is also evident in the basic terms used by Reiki proponents to describe what happens in
Reiki therapy, particularly that of "universal life energy." Neither the Scriptures nor the
Christian tradition as a whole speak of the natural world as based on "universal life energy" that is subject to manipulation by the natural human power of thought and will. In fact, this worldview has its origins in eastern religions and has a certain monist and pantheistic character, in that distinctions among self, world, and God tend to fall away. We have already seen that Reiki practitioners are unable to differentiate clearly between divine healing power and power that is at human disposal.
CONCLUSION
Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief. For a Catholic to believe in Reiki therapy presents insoluble problems. In terms of caring for one's physical health or the physical health of others, to employ a technique that has no scientific support (or even plausibility) is generally not prudent. In terms of caring for one's spiritual health, there are important dangers. To use Reiki one would have to accept at least in an implicit way central elements of the worldview that undergirds Reiki theory, elements that belong neither to Christian faith nor to natural science. Without justification either from Christian faith or natural science, however, a Catholic who puts his or her trust in Reiki would be operating in the realm of superstition, the no-man's-land that is neither faith nor science. Superstition corrupts one's worship of God by turning one's religious feeling and practice in a false direction. While sometimes people fall into superstition through ignorance, it is the responsibility of all who teach in the name of the Church to eliminate such
ignorance as much as possible.
Since Reiki therapy is not compatible with either Christian teaching or scientific
evidence, it would be inappropriate for Catholic institutions, such as Catholic health care facilities and retreat centers, or persons representing the Church, such as Catholic chaplains, to promote or to provide support for Reiki therapy."
Although the Church has spoken clearly and warned of the dangers associated with Reiki, Ms. Patricia Warren, a Reiki instructor who has conducted healing lectures/retreats at La Salette Attleboro, has left a comment at this Blog in which she says: "I am writing because I see that you have used my name in your comment/letter. I have been teaching Reiki for over 20 years, and yes I have studied with many teachers throughout the world. I have an open mind, and open heart....and I am not afraid to "experience" things for myself rather than be told what to believe. Ironically you leave out the part of my spiritual path that talks about how Reiki brought me back to my Christian roots. Reiki brought me back to the 'church'. I was so overjoyed that I developed a specific workshop for Christians who wanted to learn more about assisting the process of healing. A Roman Catholic priest sat next to me the first time I taught this workshop and encouraged me to bring it out into the world. There is nothing "occult' about it. There are many ways to praise Jesus, I saw that first hand when I traveled through the Holy Land gathering more information on healing. I have taught many, many Roman Catholic priests and nuns as well as Episcopal priests and monks Reiki....it has only helped them not hurt them.There seems to be more outrage in a simple healing method used mostly by lay women to help people when they are in pain, then during the many years of the Church Sex Abuse Scandal....talk about 'dangerous'"
In another comment which I have saved but have decided not to publish, Ms. Warren says that she was "Born and raised Catholic" and that her "great uncle was a monsignor in Boston." I don't doubt that for a moment. She then proceeds to tell me that she is not "a religious fanatic or zealot" (I never said she was so I suppose Ms. Warren is implying that I am) and writes, "I can see I'm in the wrong place to have balanced conversation with an adult."
If Ms. Warren wants to view me as a "fanatic," a "zealot," or as being somehow less than adult for accepting the teaching of the Bishops regarding Reiki, that's her affair. One has to wonder if Ms. Warren views the Bishops who crafted "Guidelines For Evaluating Reiki As An Alternative Therapy" as "fanatics" and "zealots." Will Ms. Warren abide by the Church's teaching? Her statement that she is not to afraid to "experience" things for herself rather than be told what to believe would seem to suggest that she has every intention of ignoring the guidelines prepared by the Committee on Doctrine of the USCCB.
How sad.
"Reiki lacks scientific credibility. It has not been accepted by the scientific and medical communities as an effective therapy. Reputable scientific studies attesting to the efficacy of Reiki are lacking, as is a plausible scientific explanation as to how it could possibly be efficacious. The explanation of the efficacy of Reiki depends entirely on a particular view of the world as permeated by this "universal life energy" (Reiki) that is subject to manipulation by human thought and will. Reiki practitioners claim that their training allows one to channel the "universal life energy" that is present in all things. This "universal life energy," however, is unknown to natural science. As the presence of such energy has not been observed by means of natural science, the justification for these therapies necessarily must come from something other than science.
Reiki and the Healing Power of Christ
Some people have attempted to identify Reiki with the divine healing known to
Christians. They are mistaken. The radical difference can be immediately seen in the fact that for the Reiki practitioner the healing power is at human disposal. Some teachers want to avoid this implication and argue that it is not the Reiki practitioner personally who effects the healing, but the Reiki energy directed by the divine consciousness. Nevertheless, the fact remains that for Christians the access to divine healing is by prayer to Christ as Lord and Savior, while the essence of Reiki is not a prayer but a technique that is passed down from the "Reiki Master" to the pupil, a technique that once mastered will reliably produce the anticipated results. Some practitioners attempt to Christianize Reiki by adding a prayer to Christ, but this does not affect the essential nature of Reiki. For these reasons, Reiki and other similar therapeutic techniques cannot be identified with what Christians call healing by divine grace.
The difference between what Christians recognize as healing by divine grace and Reiki
therapy is also evident in the basic terms used by Reiki proponents to describe what happens in
Reiki therapy, particularly that of "universal life energy." Neither the Scriptures nor the
Christian tradition as a whole speak of the natural world as based on "universal life energy" that is subject to manipulation by the natural human power of thought and will. In fact, this worldview has its origins in eastern religions and has a certain monist and pantheistic character, in that distinctions among self, world, and God tend to fall away. We have already seen that Reiki practitioners are unable to differentiate clearly between divine healing power and power that is at human disposal.
CONCLUSION
Reiki therapy finds no support either in the findings of natural science or in Christian belief. For a Catholic to believe in Reiki therapy presents insoluble problems. In terms of caring for one's physical health or the physical health of others, to employ a technique that has no scientific support (or even plausibility) is generally not prudent. In terms of caring for one's spiritual health, there are important dangers. To use Reiki one would have to accept at least in an implicit way central elements of the worldview that undergirds Reiki theory, elements that belong neither to Christian faith nor to natural science. Without justification either from Christian faith or natural science, however, a Catholic who puts his or her trust in Reiki would be operating in the realm of superstition, the no-man's-land that is neither faith nor science. Superstition corrupts one's worship of God by turning one's religious feeling and practice in a false direction. While sometimes people fall into superstition through ignorance, it is the responsibility of all who teach in the name of the Church to eliminate such
ignorance as much as possible.
Since Reiki therapy is not compatible with either Christian teaching or scientific
evidence, it would be inappropriate for Catholic institutions, such as Catholic health care facilities and retreat centers, or persons representing the Church, such as Catholic chaplains, to promote or to provide support for Reiki therapy."
Although the Church has spoken clearly and warned of the dangers associated with Reiki, Ms. Patricia Warren, a Reiki instructor who has conducted healing lectures/retreats at La Salette Attleboro, has left a comment at this Blog in which she says: "I am writing because I see that you have used my name in your comment/letter. I have been teaching Reiki for over 20 years, and yes I have studied with many teachers throughout the world. I have an open mind, and open heart....and I am not afraid to "experience" things for myself rather than be told what to believe. Ironically you leave out the part of my spiritual path that talks about how Reiki brought me back to my Christian roots. Reiki brought me back to the 'church'. I was so overjoyed that I developed a specific workshop for Christians who wanted to learn more about assisting the process of healing. A Roman Catholic priest sat next to me the first time I taught this workshop and encouraged me to bring it out into the world. There is nothing "occult' about it. There are many ways to praise Jesus, I saw that first hand when I traveled through the Holy Land gathering more information on healing. I have taught many, many Roman Catholic priests and nuns as well as Episcopal priests and monks Reiki....it has only helped them not hurt them.There seems to be more outrage in a simple healing method used mostly by lay women to help people when they are in pain, then during the many years of the Church Sex Abuse Scandal....talk about 'dangerous'"
In another comment which I have saved but have decided not to publish, Ms. Warren says that she was "Born and raised Catholic" and that her "great uncle was a monsignor in Boston." I don't doubt that for a moment. She then proceeds to tell me that she is not "a religious fanatic or zealot" (I never said she was so I suppose Ms. Warren is implying that I am) and writes, "I can see I'm in the wrong place to have balanced conversation with an adult."
If Ms. Warren wants to view me as a "fanatic," a "zealot," or as being somehow less than adult for accepting the teaching of the Bishops regarding Reiki, that's her affair. One has to wonder if Ms. Warren views the Bishops who crafted "Guidelines For Evaluating Reiki As An Alternative Therapy" as "fanatics" and "zealots." Will Ms. Warren abide by the Church's teaching? Her statement that she is not to afraid to "experience" things for herself rather than be told what to believe would seem to suggest that she has every intention of ignoring the guidelines prepared by the Committee on Doctrine of the USCCB.
How sad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
