LETTERS

ARTICLES

NEWS

FOLLOW ME

ROAMIN' CATHOLIC






Contents © 2002
by Jim Holman.
All rights reserved.

LETTERS
SEPTEMBER 2002

---

CORRECTION

In the July/August Faith, the last paragraph of the article "Twister Liturgy" was cut off. The full paragraph reads as follows:

When asked if the bishop's February letter was binding, Sister Barbara Long, Monterey's diocesan liturgist, said, "we are just in the education process. We are working on matching up with what we are being presented with the revised Institutio."


WHO'S LOOKING OUT FOR FASCISTS?

Regarding "Embrace Ambiguity" [July/August 2002 Faith], it must not be forgotten that the sickness of lust of any kind is the real problem for all of us. Lust is not even appropriate in marriage (Tobit 8:7). We have all seen a lot lately how homosexual lust hurts others. But we are foolish to forget that heterosexual lust deeply hurts others also. It does this not only by pedophilia and ephebophilia, but also by divorce and remarriage, which Christ called adultery.

Then there are those people who lust after mammon so badly that they can't even think straight when the subject of mammon comes up. Consciously or unconsciously, these kind will always side with the greedy and the exploiters in some form or another. The name of their sin is covetousness, greed, or idolatry.

Under the law of Moses, the idolater or the adulterer was to be stoned to death the same way as an acting homosexual was to be. Those who think God makes some important distinction between these grave mortal sins are grossly deceived, in my opinion.

And if homosexual temptation constitutes an acceptable bar from the priesthood, then Our Lord would not qualify since, as the writer of Hebrews penned, "He was tempted in all points like us, but did not sin (Hebrews 4:15)." Such a bar would exclude my favorite priest/preacher, I'm sure.

When Pope John XXIII encouraged opposing those candidates "affected" by perverse inclinations, I don't see how "affected" would rationally include those who do not follow through on their "inclinations." If they don't follow through, they are not "affected" in any way that is anyone's business. Those who interpret canon law differently might be guilty of a worse sin: partiality, a demonic or ungodly "wisdom" (James 3:15-17).

St. Paul said married people will have problems (I Corinthians 7:28-33). If that is so, how is sacrificing the problems of married life a virtue? The primary virtue in celibacy is that the "unmarried person cares for the things of the Lord." We are all to remain in our calling; none of us choose that calling. God reserves the right to call homosexuals to a holy lifestyle, I'm sure. I'm also convinced that prohibiting a deeply spiritual, chaste homosexual person from fulfilling such a holy calling during a priest shortage is a serious sin. Father Coleman and other good people seem to agree.

Therefore, another question before us is this: "does the homosexual have a duty to reveal his or her temptations to others?" The answer to this is found in the next question, "do you have an obligation to reveal your temptations to mortal sin to me?" I think the answer is an obvious, "no!" That's what confessors and sacraments are for. We are all tempted by mortal sin. There is a reason the sacrament of confession has a seal of secrecy.

It's the Catholic who thinks he is not attracted to mortal sin that I believe is the most dangerous. He is probably deep in its grip. Such people often get that way because they reject church and scripture teaching on greed and power in a greed-oriented, power-hungry society. It has been my observation that those kinds of people frequently end up as demented, raving fascists. There were many of these "Catholic" types supporting Hitler/Mussolini during WWII and supporting Pinochet during his murderous purge of leftists. These kinds always bring a lasting and worse scandal on the name of the church than homosexuals could even begin to imagine doing. One might argue that these reactionary types were responsible for the Spanish Inquisition. Who watches out for them in the seminaries?

No decent, Christ-loving Catholic likes to have sin of any kind shoved under his or her nose and be ordered to smell it and love it and change centuries of church teaching to accommodate it. When we refuse to stick our sins in the face of others we contribute to the virtue of modesty (CCC 2521) as well as to sound doctrine. Maybe modesty and sound doctrine are the subjects that we really need to discuss -- not the private temptations of seminarians.

Tom Saltsman,
received via e-mail


Editor's reply: Mr. Saltsman's letter contains a number of points. I'll only be able to address the most central ones. First, while heterosexual lust and avarice are certainly very serious sins, they represent perversions of natural desires. It is natural for a man to desire a woman as it is natural, and right, for him to want earthly goods. When these desires become inordinate, then they become sinful. The object of homosexual desire, however, is not natural; it is not natural for a man to desire sexual congress with another man. Thus, homosexual acts are not merely sinful, but derive from a desire which is radically perverse.

Secondly, Our Lord was not tempted in the sense that he struggled with concupiscence, as we do. He felt no interior pull towards sinful acts. To say otherwise would be to say that his humanity was in some sense fallen. Thus, Christ felt no interior urge to commit homosexual acts.

Thirdly, the directive approved by Pope John XXIII stated "those affected by the perverse inclination to homosexuality or pederasty should be excluded from religious vows and ordination." He did not say that those who commit such acts should be excluded, but those who had those inclinations. This is borne out by what follows: those with homosexual or pederast inclinations should be excluded, said the directive, "since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers." That is, the mode of life would put them in occasions of sin.

Finally, one does not have to reveal his sins to others, unless they have the right to know. For instance, a bus company has the right to know whether or not a man who applies for a driver's job has a drinking or a drug problem. Such a problem could seriously affect the safety of his passengers. It would be the duty of the man to reveal this problem to his potential employer.


CLARIFICATION ON LITURGICAL DANCE

After reading the article "Twister Liturgy" by Eric Reslock in the July/August Faith, I was moved to write about something that has bothered me for a long time.

I live in a small town close to Yosemite National Park. For several years now our pastor has started off Mass on the eve of Pentecost with a procession of barefoot dancing girls who dance up the isle and then onto the altar until the priests processes up and begins the Mass.

I have audio tapes titled, "The Liturgy of the Third Millennium," by Father Peter Stravinskas, papal consultant on the liturgy. In these tapes, Father Stravinskas reflects on liturgical reforms and the misguided local interpretations that have combined to create the liturgical mess we face today. One of the references he makes is to the dancing at some parish Masses. He states that this is never allowed in the Catholic Church except in one African nation where it is part of their worship culture and is done only for worship and not as a social act for pleasure and enjoyment.

I attended the first Mass at which these dancing girls did their thing; there was no advance notice that this would occur. My wife and I were totally shocked and I felt as though we were witnessing a pagan ritual. We decided we would never attend such a (in my opinion) sacrilegious display again.

I would like some feedback about such a display and the fact that Father Stravinskas states it is not allowed. He also spoke of a pastor who was assisting his visiting bishop at Mass where the gifts were brought up to the celebrant by two parishioners who danced up the isle. The pastor was removed from that parish the next day.

Albert Ranson,
Mariposa, CA


ARE THE JESUITS CRAZY?

As I read the article ["Embrace Ambiguity," July/August Faith] describing the memo sent to the Jesuit Theological Seminary in Berkeley, I am left wondering: Do the Jesuits say the prayer, "we believe in one holy Catholic and apostolic church?" Are they crazy to even suggest that a seminarian hang out in a bar of ANY kind and see that he has a designated driver along "just in case"? I am appalled. To say the least, they are part of the problem, considering their thinking.

Is our church going to be split down the middle? Have the Jesuits heard of the pope and the magisterium? Apparently, they make their ownrules. It is shameful.

Judy Knutsen


I'M NOT LISTENING!

This is the third time I request that you remove my name from your mailing list. I do not wish to receive San Francisco Faith.

If you insist on sending me copies of the newspaper, please be assured that I will continue to throw it away without reading it.

Sister Bernice Gotelli, PBVM,
Oakland


NO OBEDIENCE, NO BUCKS

Regarding the article about Bay Area seminaries continuing to accept homosexuals to the priesthood ["Embrace Ambiguity," July/August Mission], isn't the church embroiled enough in problems through the damaging scandals involving molesting priests who, for the most part, are homosexuals? If the Vatican's position is, and has been, to bar homosexuals from the seminaries, why is it that Father Daoust and Father Coleman continue to ignore the Church's direction? Their ignoring or turning a blind eye to admitting homosexuals will certainly encourage more sexual exploitation of innocent children.

The logical recourse to combat and oppose the position of these directors of seminaries is to refuse them financial support. And if this means a shortage of committed priests -- so be it! I have yet to read, hear or be aware of any programs for the hierarchy of repentance and reparation to our heavenly Father for the outrages that have taken place in our churches.

These are indeed sad and disheartening days for those striving to be faithful.

Vern Hunt,
Lucerne

TOP