Here we are in the College garden. On the left, next to Mr Blair is Mgr Nicholas Hudson, Rector of the English College. The priest on the right of the picture is Mgr Andrew Summersgill.
And then in the College Refectory, next to Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, Secretary for Relations with States.
Cardinal Cormac, who was sitting next to Mrs Blair, welcomes the PM:
And the PM replies:
Comments that will be published include: discussion of the meaning of this visit, the consequences and impact of it.Comments that will not be published include: personal attacks, attempts to ask me, speculate about or publicise who sent me the photos. (The photographs were taken quite legitimately but the photographer wishes to remain anonymous.)
40 comments:
I believe it is Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, secretary for relations with states.
http://www.catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bmamberti.html
I love the christian tone of this blog.
Father, thank you for posting this. I'm glad it's in the public domain.
However, given the well-known voting record of the PM and the public comments of his wife on moral issues (which are at variance with the teaching of the Chruch), I feel sick at heart that TB appears to being feted in this way.
I make no comment on the personal motives of any of those invovled. All I say is, with the greatest of sadness, is that while the Church may gain one convert - I fear She may lose one cradle Catholic.
I cannot sign my name.
anon (1) - many thanks. Checked some photos on google and that seems to be who it is.
Anonymous wrote: "However, given the well-known voting record....being feted in this way"
Sadly this seems to be one of the examples of the fallen nature of Man. Political leaders of all shades are excused things that would be deemed monumental scandals if committed by ordinary people. For example Henry VIII while still a Catholic was known to take mistresses and to the best of my knowledge was never refused Holy Commmunion. Going through more recent history there are various interesting annulments of well known figures in certain catholic countries and I don't think Robert Mugabe has ever been refused Holy Communion.
Sadly a person having power seems to bring out a peculiar sort of pride in those around them which blinds them to the realities of the situation, especially where that person has Charisma, and as the clergy are fallen like the rest of us, they are just as vulnerable to this.
Those like Archbishop Ncube and Cardinal John Fisher have always been the exception rather than the rule. Even with the apostles all but one ran away. I suppose its one demonstration of why we needed redeeming by the Lord.
Thanks for the pics father.
Gosh he looks very happy and at home. I hope he has a true conversion soon. It's always a delight to see and I would celebrate it. I do not think he will convert as a matter of course. So people who worry about the "courting" going on should not perturb themselves too much. Often, good converts respect the Faith more than cradle Catholics. So let's all leave it to God and hope and pray that another soul will be turned.
Argy
This is just one more indication that all the reports that Tony Blair will convert from the Church of England to the Catholic Church are accurate. Only God knows his heart and he will be in our prayers. For all things are possible through Our Lord Jesus Christ.
http://ihmhermitage.stblogs.com/2007/06/23/prime-minister-blair-may-become-catholic/
Can't see many seminarians present. Were they packed of to the villa for the day? I do hope the food has improved since I was there. Poor old Graziano tries his best but bibos, the external caterers, were always cutting corners!
I think too much might be read into the English College's hospitality on this occasion. I'm no fan of Mr Blair, but it's not unreasonable for a Head of Government to receive a lunch in his country's national college when he's in Rome to visit the Pope.
I suspect that any American President or Irish Prime Minister or German Chancellor or French President or Polish Prime Minister would receive the same courtesy from their respective national colleges without it being inferred that this was some kind of political endorsement.
Maybe the rumours surrounding Mr Blair's supposed conversion are muddying the waters, but if the Holy Father is willing to meet him, surely there can be no objection to him lunching with the community at the VEC.
There is some good news: see http://ttonys-blog.blogspot.com/2007/06/pm-at-vatican.html
I remember seeing the picture of Cherie meeting the Pope while she was wearing white. These last few meetings, has her wardrobe been more appropriately colored?
I think this is what is termed a "scoop". The pictures tell a good story and very little needs to be added in words. The pictures do tell it all. Well done, Fr Tim. Is it a cruel irony or a happy coincidence that St Thomas More's feast was celebrated this week as well ? Didn`t he go to the block for the authority of the Pope ...? How times have changed.
Not many seminarians present because it was a free weekend.
Zadok - yes, that is true but the "Conversion of Tony" story has been spun for weeks and I think it is justifiable to see this as a part of the overall spin. Time will tell.
Ttony - I think your interpretation is right. Deo Gratias.
Bernadette - I could see this coming and found a friendly source. Almost feel like a real journalist :-) I also reflected ruefully on the feast of SS John Fisher and Thomas More...
Why do not cardinals wear their simars?
anonymous(2),
The majority of seminarians were present and encouraged to be so; in spite of it being a free weekend in the middle of exams, seminarians voluntarily attended. The food (considering the high profile guests there present) was excellent. The camera angle doesn't always tell the full story.
Why do not cardinals wear their simars?
I'm not sure what a "simar" is but perhaps it is against the school rules and they don't want to fight that particular battle :-)
The majority of seminarians were present and encouraged to be so...
That word "encouraged" will send a shiver down the spine of anyone who has spent time in the modern liberal seminary.
It appears we need not have feared, Pope Benedict has not let us down. Front page of todays Mail on Sunday:
Pope: Miracles hard to come by in Britain
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=463993&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
Tacitus - could explain that remark? Sorry but I don't get it.
Are you suggesting that modern liberal seminaries are in reality run by ogres? In other words, the authorities lay down the law as and when it suits them but not when it comes to applying the letter of the magisterium.
Whether Mr Blair is received into the Church remains to be seen but we all know the appalling weakness the Church in England has for 'notable' converts. Episcopal and clerical luminaries cannot resist tugging their forelocks to the great and the good. It is demeaning and absurd but atavistic, I fear. One of the glories of the Church in these islands is that it is, with the exception of the Catholic toffs, as common as muck and when it tries to be less so only succeeds in becoming worse. Take Cherie for instance: Liverpool tricked out by Footballers' Wives. None of the superior converts are taken in by it but find it a great source of amusement. The snobbery and sycophancy of those beyond the pale is a sight to see and it is abundently evident in these snaps. Cardinal Hume would not have lent himself to a display like this. Blair would merely have been invited to tea with no cameras in sight. And you, Father, are tinged with it yourself for giving them publicity. Should Blair ever convert you may be sure that the path into the Church will be well accommodated and difficulties overlooked, whatever his personal views on doctrine and his voting record. Its getting him in the bag that matters more than truth and a right disposition. And he will find many cradle Catholics who have little difficulty in accepting his views and those of his wife. Like her mouth, they run round the world.
I always found when studying in Rome dignitaries would always flock to the VEC but pointedly ignore the other British Colleges, in particular the Scots College, a touch of the "little englanders" possibly. Always found the VEC a truly ghastly place. The staff and students weren't very friendly and there was always a terrible smell. It was like a really crass public school, possibly explains why Tony fits in so well.
Like many others I welcome anyone into the Church. But we can't allow Blair unless he renounces his view on abortion, stem cell research, and gay rights in particular. No other Prime Minister has done more to turn Britain into a moral wasteland than he has.
No other Prime Minister has done more to turn Britain into a moral wasteland than he has.
Oh, I don't know. Harold Wilson did a pretty good job allowing Roy Jenkins to run riot 1966-70 as Home secretary.
TB is merely the heir to Jenkins' bien pensent liberalism. He's culpable in so far as he has placed himself close to the Church and flirted with conversion while at the same time rejecting every major moral position on which the Church makes an unequivocal stand.
This will require some careful unravelling or his widely predicted conversion will be a cause of scandal to the faithful of this country.
How much of the VEC is still a seminary? Last time I visited it seemed that a lot of the college had been converted into luxury appartments. I don't imagine there are many seminarians there now. I also noted the faded grandeur of the place - seemed to be limping along on the merits of past fidelity!
Fr Guy Nicholls makes a short but good comment on Blair's conversion..over on my blog...
Surely I am not alone in thinking it odd that a Prime Minister who has engaged in a war which was condemned both by the current Pope and by his predecessor should have an easy entry into the Church. Speaking about the possibility of an invasion of Iraq before his election to the papacy, the then Cardinal Ratzinger said:
"All I can do is invite you to read the Catechism, and the conclusion seems obvious to me…the concept of preventive war does not appear in The Catechism of the Catholic Church." Later he would say: "It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world." And following the start of the War, His Future Holiness was unequivocal in his views: "There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war'."
One might also wonder how Tony Blair managed to explain to His Holiness that it was his Government which tried to force faith schools in England to open up to accept 25% of pupils from other faith backgrounds -- a move which was strongly, and successfully, opposed by the Catholic church. Similarly, Tony Blair may find himself in a slightly uncomfortable position if the Pope decides to ask him if he doesn't think it slightly odd that he should seek entry to the Roman Catholic faith so soon after his Government created civil partnerships between gay couples and, most recently, ignored the Roman Catholic Church's desperate plea to exempt Roman Catholic adoption agencies from equality laws on gay adoption.
More on this on my blog.
How much of the VEC is still a seminary? Last time I visited it seemed that a lot of the college had been converted into luxury appartments. I don't imagine there are many seminarians there now.
This comment seems rather discouraging ofseminarians currently at the college who, together with those charged with the responsibility of forming them (whilst keeping the college viable), are going about their response to God's call conscientiously. They would be better served by our prayers.
As for the number of students at the college (as at the seminaries in England), perhaps we should pray for an increase in vocations to the Priesthood.
"limping along on the merits of past fidelity"
The entire British Catholic Church is in the same state ...
Does anybody know how many seminarians for English and Welsh dioceses there are at the VEC? I know that the Pontifical North American college has more than 200. I think the smallest seminary in Rome is the Swedish College with around 6 seminarians. I don't know why all the UK seminaries in Rome don't merge?
Here's an interesting take.
http://www.counterpunch.org/dickinson06232007.html
From the vec website it looks like there are only 23 seminarians from UK dioceses currently resident. The other resident are priests and seminarians from Malta, France, and Poland. I know what one commentator means about it being an unwelcoming place. Didn't they refuse the young Fr Karol Woytla a place whilst he studied at the Angelicum? I believe he found a warmer reception at the Belgian College!
I am confused as to why more students from the English seminaries don't study there. Ushaw has only 20+ why not empty it of students, sell it then use the money to maintain the VEC?
Something has to be done about the atmosphere of these places. There are clearly problems.
Valladolid has no seminarians at all and yet this costs nothing. Why run that pre-seminary course there? Again, move the Wonersh crowd and Allen Hall out there? A pre-seminary course can be run anywhere and can used to learn Latin and a foreign language.
The facilities have to be improved - as a minimum decent food and en suite rooms. Allen Hall is a total dump and surrounded by temptations on the Kings Road.
Morale has to be raised.
Anonymous, that was 60 years ago! Do you have a more recent experience of feeling unwelcome there? I was at the VEC last year, we were given an excellent tour and made to feel very welcome, I spoke to several of the seminarians and enjoyed my visit very much. I agree it is a shame there are so few students (I think there is a similar situation at the other UK seminaries?), but the ones I met I couldn't fault. God bless them and all those generous men who are offering themselves for the priesthood!
Last Anonymous - the reason more students don't study there - and why we continue to pay exorbitant sums of money to keep the virtually empty seminaries in England going - is episcopal politics, nothing more, nothing less.
A review of the seminaries was carried out a few years ago under Bishop McMahon of Nottingham. That review seemingly recommended some closures and consolidation; bishops became territorial and we still have all of the seminaries open.
Our seminarians are excellent men and deserve the best in their formation. If all students went to Rome and/or Valladolid, then that would allow existing seminaries to be sold and/or used for other, perhaps more effective, magisterially-conformant purposes eg sound catechetical studies, a Catholic university, perhaps? Unfortunately, such proposals would never be allowed to get off the ground.
It would be very sad to close our seminaries and I'd like to think that a reason for keeping them open is because of a well-founded hope that there will be an upsurge in men responding to God's call - but that seems unlikely in the immediate future.
Meanwhile, our good seminarians rattle around in fairly empty buildings.
peterh
nobody is disputing the quality of students although I have heard that there is still a "gay" problem in some of them. In such small communities, it takes only a small amount of effeminate behaviour to impact upon the culture of the college.
These places need to be accountable either to OFSTED or some external body possibly from the Vatican. There could also be a real ecumenical opportunity -Jewish/Muslim/Protestant visitors to whom the students could speak freely and anonymously about the problems of these places.
I participated in an appalling discernment weekend of one province. Everything about it was dreadful with the exception of the plumbing and the other candidates - yes the rooms were en suite! The food however, was discusting - I mean inedible. If the Lord had been there, he would surely have had pity on his people and sent out for pizzas.
We should shut down the places and send our students abroad (there are at least two "English" courses in Rome). The problem with the BEDA is that we allowed the Angelicum to develop an English philosophy and theology course (now used by wealthy American college kids for their abroad) when the BEDA should have been developed for this purpose in addition to teaching British students who struggle with a foreign language.
This continual obsession with having degrees recognized by British institutions (the BEDA for some bizarre reason uses a Welsh university) should stop.
Priests who are teaching in our seminaries should be free to work in parishes. All this talk of "vocations shortage" is rubbish. On my discernment weekend, there was no mention of this - it was just business as usual: the same old failed model and attutudes. Yet, I had tuned up in the belief that was a need of priests. No sign of that in the way I was spoken to so I pulled out. Incredibly, I have heard rumours that my local diocese (which has about 10 students for the priesthood) wants to start its own seminary! These bishops have far more ego than any common sense!
Two points really:
a] The Tony Blair conversion issue:
Please dudes, remember the fundamental catholic teaching regarding entry into the church; exemplified in Trent : If a true believer acknowledges their sinfulness, repents of them with a firm desire of amendment - we are forbidden from judging their previous life or their worth as a candidate - BUT Our beloved ex-prime minister has a reprehensibly heinous voting record on anti-life policies and actuated an illegal unjust war contrary to catholic moral teaching - were he to become a catholic he could never condone, excuse or justify such past acts without scandalising the entire church and jeopardising his soul by conspiring in latae sententiae excommunicable acts. Becoming a catholic has consequences - tearing his past life to shreds in public would be one of them.
b] Seminaries : we're all fully aware of what's going on in them. I was a seminarian and the sin of detraction prevents me from saying where; but needless to say, my decades of involvement with clerics and seminarians has led me to many unpalatable conclusions.
i] Our cultural attitude towards homosexuality has to change - i'm not talking about condoning gay sex or gay marriage - I'm talking about accepting homosexuals in our families and communities and stopping the whole notion of homosexuality-in-itself being sordid or perverted or [on occasion] enticingly 'forbidden fruit'. clinical psychologists have performed many studies and have found that over a sixth of adolescent males are exclusively homosexual for a period of around three years during sexual maturation - for about 80% of these teenagers they will progress through sexual maturation and end up predominantly heterosexual - providing there are no limiting factors delaying this process then sexual insecurity and ambiguity can be prolonged for even decades. It's a fact that many young men from catholic families who are insecure about their sexuality try to run away and hide in seminaries. Whether being a celibate homosexual is a valid preclusion from ordination or not is debatable; but one thing about seminaries is the opportunity for occasion of sin within them when it comes to physical homosexual intimacies - now guilt-laden mutual masturbation may be excused away as infantile and 'stress releasing' and hardly harmful or grave matter... but when it comes to seminaries if this were the major problem most of our worries would be allayed - it isn't ! Now the venerabile collegio inglese has always been renowned for its 'campness' - the all-male disocs etc, and sure the male-male intimacies were always susceptible to sexual weakness; but as a seminary in whole ; 'Jack' was renowned for nipping that sort of thing in the bud; as were his successors. In other homegrown english seminaries the story was sometimes very different - there were occasional blips through the years where predatory homosexuals formed cliques and sought to 'corrupt' any who took their fancy or make people's lives as uncomfortable as possible should they not succumb to their less than subtle moves. But on the other hand no english seminary has ever been as bad as some have been in the US - one my old boss attended had a practice called 'notching' - basically the seniors would compete with each other as to how many of the first years they could have anal sex with - ' a notch on their bedpost' [the seniors more often than not included staff members as well] . Whereas in english seminaries the odd few would 'couple off', in the US ones groups of three, four or more would become f-buddies, or belong to a select group under the auspices of a gay member of staff who would keep them under their wing and provide them with access to and protection from whatever was necessary. Sound incredible ? Well it was !! and luckily over the decades this activity has diminished significantly; but there are still many clerics out there who are products of that system and it has damaged them physically, psychologically and spiritually...One seminary rector in the UK once joked that the quickest way to double numbers at the sunday night prayer service would be to hold it where most of the college was - the local gay sauna. One has to acknowledge the fact that despite there being many sincere devout orthodox young men seeking to test their vocation in seminary; there are also those who run and hide in seminary because they can't tell mum and dad they're gay. If these insecure young men feel compelled to do this we have to apportion most of the blame upon ourselves and our attitude to homosexuality. Although we should in no way compromise our catholic moral teaching, we are forbidden from being homophobic in any way, personal distate or discomfort with homosexuality may be understandable but it is not part of our catholicism and we are commanded by Christ to love all, irrespective of who they are; and when young men feel ashamed and terrified for being who they are due to no act of will on their own part; it's our families and communities that should be feeling ashamed of themselves.
ii] seminarians are ill-educated, poorly trained, and given little , if any preparation or mental/psychological/spiritual training needed for the life of a priest. If it were up to me I would limit ordination to the earliest age of 30 ; with a minimum of two years working in a parish as a deacon and seven years intensive study and pastoral/ spiritual/counselling training. Admittedly the UK is nowhere near as bad as the US where one gets a masters degree for merely showing up irrespective of how ignorant one is on even the fundamental basics of doctrine, morality ,liturgical practice or canon law. But a bit of philosophy, a bit more theology and a bit of canon law marriage with a few months diaconate in a nice cosy parish is NOT the training a seminarian should either respect or deserve. How many newly ordained priests crash and burn within the first few years after ordination and never recover ? They just stay in the job through fear and go through the motions while any priestly fervour or authenticity vanishes in a haze of cynicism, pragmatism and 'hiding in comfort; [be it food, alcohol,shopping,travelling, gambling, internet porn , girlfriends/boyfriends whatever...]
These priests do not thrive mainly because they have been reprehensibly poorly trained - and that blame lies on our doorstep. We simply don't care enough, let alone pray enough for either priests, seminarians or vocations....
If the Pope wishes the church to survive the next generation , he must make an all-out assault upon the seminaries and reform them [without being thwarted the same way JPII was in the mid-80's]
I'm sorry if I offended some of you with my remarks and opinions and my callous statement of tasteless facts; but this is too important an issue to be limited by good taste.
OTSOTA - To be honest, I was in two minds whether to publish your comment because you are not identifiable and make a number of quite serious allegations. However, I accept that you are genuine in your motives and so will make a few observations.
Broadly speaking, I think that many of your observations relate to seminaries of some years ago during a period of turmoil addressed for example in the book “Goodbye Good Men”. I think it is fair to say that these problems have been quite seriously addressed in most seminaries in more recent years. There will always be more to do but it is not realistic to speak as though nothing has changed in the past decade.
Your basic thesis seems to be that it is homophobia which has led to problems of homosexuality etc. in seminaries. I disagree. On the contrary, as set out very well in the book “After Asceticism”, it is much more likely that the loss of the ascetical tradition in the priesthood and in priestly formation that led to the more serious problems. It is solid habits of prayer and penance, allied with sound formation in theology that will be the answer today just as it has always been in the many times in the Church’s history when “the reform of the clergy” has been a priority for the Church.
There are some points that I would particularly like to take you up on:
guilt-laden mutual masturbation may be excused away as infantile and 'stress releasing' and hardly harmful or grave matter...
That is contrary to the teaching of the Church. Many moralists since the 1940s have argued that such behaviour, might not involve full consent but there is no question that it is grave matter. My own view is that a person who has sinned in this way would generally do better to assume that there is full consent, abstain from communion and go to confession as soon as possible. That way, we preserve the genuine Christian optimism that a person can change their behaviour and live a virtuous life.
personal distate or discomfort with homosexuality may be understandable but it is not part of our catholicism and we are commanded by Christ to love all
Non sequitur. The Church teaches that homosexuality is a disorder and that homosexual acts are gravely sinful. The command to love one another does not involve a duty to be comfortable with a disordered inclination or to find it tasteful. You speak of the not uncommon homosexual inclination in adolescence and the process of maturation. I think it is wrong to lay the limiting of this maturation at the door of unsympathetic parents. A boy going through such a phase is far more likely to remain in homosexual circles nowadays because of the proliferation of gay advice lines, clubs and the gay scene that flourishes in most urban centres. The approach of the CDF which I believe to be sound, is to say that someone who has a deep-seated homosexual inclination should not be part of a seminary community because of the disruption this causes – you have outlined some of the more extreme examples of this disruption.
seminarians are ill-educated, poorly trained, and given little , if any preparation or mental/psychological/spiritual training needed for the life of a priest.
That is tendentious and unjust. Most seminarians nowadays are quite well educated in secular terms and there is intense concern to provide psychological and spiritual formation. From a scientific point of view, I would not always agree with the direction of the psychology but seminarians nowadays do not go through their training without a considerable effort on the part of their seminary to ensure that they are aware of their character; its strengths and weaknesses.
If it were up to me I would limit ordination to the earliest age of 30
The Spanish Bishops at Trent suggested something similar in those days. The Church took the wise view that training in a seminary would help young men to avoid developing the bad habits of a worldly life. I see no reason to think that this is less true today.
they have been reprehensibly poorly trained
Again, this sweeping statement masks the good work that is being done. I am sure we would all agree that it could be done better. But in the seminary I know best, there is a solid, orthodox, and well-organised formation in theology, and canon law, to address the subjects you focus on. (The other subjects relevant to priestly formation are also covered properly and in depth.) The spiritual and liturgical formation includes a course in the spiritual classics, the different orthodox Christian traditions of prayer and meditation, penance and a systematic study of ascetical and mystical theology. The students themselves have voluntarily arranged daily rosary, and daily prayer before the Blessed Sacrament in addition to a timetable which already includes a substantial programme of liturgical and other communal prayer.
Both staff and students engage in honest review of the programme in order to improve it where necessary. Nobody would say it is perfect but it is not right simply to dismiss all the work that has been done in recent years.
Thankyou. I understand why you were hesitant in permitting the post; but please be aware it was for the best of motives; although I think you misunderstood a little regarding my main arguments; solely my fault due to the tone [fed by previous postings] and I apologise if any confusion resulted; but I do feel compelled to respond with some disagreement.
a] I heartiy concur that an ascetic/penitential spiritual formation is an absolute essential towards priestly formation and the dearth of this in the 'humanistic socio-anthropological pastoral ministry-oriented' personal formation [more akin to psycho-babbling self-help books/programmes] has led to the majority of problems - rather than becoming an empty vessel for graces to enter and all glory belonging to God in a sacrificial presbyterate of devotion to God and the church , personal fulfillment and self-revelation has almost trounced this notion of priesthood in some .
b] but I maintain that even now a significant [albeit few] amount of seminarians enter into seminary because of their 'perceived homosexuality' ; a friend of mine was present at two US seminaries over the past few years [leaving only a few months ago] and reiterated the prevailing homosexual 'argot' within the places. I will not refute that many diocesan/seminary policy implementations have wrought significant improvements in this area - but there is still a factor of young catholic men believing themselves homosexual and seeing seminary as 'the only way out'.
admittedly in well-run seminaries these predilections can be sublimated into an authentic celibacy [even an eventual heterosexual celibacy] ; but there still exists a sexually predatory few who seek out anyone susceptible to their blatant seductive ploys. The 'damning indictment' exposes on the issue published mainly in the US are so salacious in nature that they are practically being used as guide books and pseudo pornography.
c] I condemn completely any moral situationism or pragmatism regarding masturbation or mutual masturbation ; it is always grave matter , albeit potentially somewhat mitigated by our limited will - refraining from the blessed sacrament and seeking immediate absolution is mandatory ; but I was speaking specifically of the intimate relationships developing in seminaries which can sometimes become debased and twisted - close friendships can occasionally cross boundaries leading to destructive harmful sexually suspect intimacies - situations like these are not irredeemable - good spiritual direction, true friendship and recognition of this being a 'sinful aberration' with advisable distance and a good prayer life the seminarians' vocation has not been irrevocably compromised. Psychologically these have been considered hardly homosexual in character at all; but ipsissive narcissistic sexual projection, and indicative of sexual immaturity. I am aware of more than a dozen of these situations and can state categoricaly that through good friends, a strong prayer life and sincere spiritual direction these seminarians went on to become phenomenally good priests who have never compromised their celibacy.
It is when these relationships are not 'nipped in the bud' and a sexually suspect 'milieu' filled with pornographic jokes/discussions and access to suspect material through literature and the internet/TV that homosexual cliques and inner rings can develop where full homosexual activity is promoted and prevalent. I belonged to a seminary with a staff which was so deeply paranoid about homosexuality [throwing out anyone if there was enough substantive evidence] that when it came to heterosexual relationships it 'turned a blind eye'. Some seminarians relationships with nuns or young girls who studied with us became too intimate. A few were almost at the point of ordination when it was discovered that they had long-term girlfriends; one sadly got a girl pregnant, some were blatantly sexually active. I had a 'girlfriend' and we had a deeply intimate relationship [although I did not compromise my or her virginity or celibacy - occasional kissing, holding hands and discussing my 'vocation' and her studies were our main topics for discussion - but it was presumed by all and sundry that we were quote: 'at it like rabbits' but staff 'turned a blind eye' because at least I wasn't a 'raging homo' unquote. I won't deny that homosexuals were stil present among the seminarians, but they were isolated and never flaunted it and their promiscuity occurred outside the college walls. But in either situation, where any sexual activity is dismissed or ignored or seen as a 'maturation phase in preparation for celibacy' the seminarians were neither supported nor guided; and the seminary staff were guilty of culpable neglect.
c] Hmm Non sequitur ? Pretty clever response, but possibly misleading to dismiss it all as merely disordered and allow the reader to infer what type of disorder you mean. The personal sinful character of homosexuality-in-itself is dependant upon its ing an act of will. For some it can be assumed that it is a 'natural' moral disorder, sourced in the scarring of creation through original sin, grounded possibly in genetics, endocrinal and biological formation; and little if any act of will is involved in its 'predisposition'. For others it can be assumed that it is derived from nurture and socio-cultural influences where free-will and choice may be significantly diminished - moral disorder, but not solely grounded in the individual. As culturally throughut the globe there is a 2.1% [+/- 0.3%] exclusively male homosexual minimum - it must be inferred that these involve very little act of will. Whereas in 'civilised' cultures where the statistics are significantly higher the diminished will 'nurture/socio-cultural influences' and the freely willed [personally morally culpable] individuals must be considered. There is both natural moral disorder and moral disorder through volition involved in this; but irrespective of this , the vatican documents regarding the pastoral care of homosexuals make things quite clear. We are never permitted to condone homosexual sexual activity; but in our treatment of homosexuals and their call to celibacy they are to be treated with extraordinary care and support along this road; receiving no condemnation for their homosexual nature which is not necessarily sinful-in-itself.
Your mentioning of gay advice lines gay cultural influences etc reinforcing the potential gay lifestyle or sexual activity - but that is my point - if the church were more willing or more vocal in their support of homosexuals seeking celibacy, or more understanding of sexual insecurity during maturation in teenagers; and countered the accusations of homophobia by the media by outward activity and evangelisation of our solid moral teaching of Love; then maybe, just maybe, these teenagers might not succumb to the influences of these organisations which seem to be the only apparent source of help for them.
I say this as a father of three who are rapidly approaching these sexual stages and would be loath for them to have their only source of advice and support from secular organisations.
d] I do not dismiss off-handedly the great deal of good work performed over recent years in the reforming of seminaries - but I honestly think this position is prone to naiivete - I sincerely believe there is still a lack of fundamental doctrinal and moral teaching, as well as canonical teaching and pastoral training, and counselling training,and as for liturgical training I think this has to be some of the most suspect ;
even if you disagree with this position , one aspect of canon law which has been so blatantly neglected to the point of criminality - is post ordination priestly training and instruction.
Be honest, how many clerics do you know who burnt/discarded their text books/study notes the moment final exams were over and have never so much as touched a book other than a sermon-aid or a John Grisham or the code of canon law in a panic when they discovered they didn't know something about marriage.
Bishops and Vicars of Clergy and Deans have been more than personally culpable for this state of affairs; but so too have the clerics themselves who have formally neglected their vows and canonical duties to continue study and training.
I sincerely do not believe my castigations of normative seminary life is either tendentious or unjust - I really believe that young priests are being poorly prepared intellectually, pastorally and spiritually for parish life and all its exigences. the situation may be improving on a small scale in certain 'bastions/oases of hope' but I truly believe that a massive overhaul of the entire system is required, and it should become a major priority of this papacy.
OTSOTA - "as a father of three", this indicates that your experience of seminary is at least a few years ago. I would urge you to be in contact with some of the young priests ordained in the past ten years. Many that I know, far from burning their notes etc. continue to seek sound theological formation and attend groups, study days, often "home grown" to supplement their knowledege and keep up to date on moral and bioethical questions.
On homosexuality - you are still confusing the condition or inclination with homosexual acts. The point is that the condition itself is "disordered" to use the word that the catechism. That is not to say that it is culpable - as you rightly point out, there may be various factors involved. But it is not a "good" nor is it comparable with being left handed, for example.
I agree of course that the Church should be more supportive of homosexually inclined men seeking to live a life in accord with the teaching of the Church.
Sorry, if my position was unclear I will clarify it. I do not condone homosexual acts in any way, shape or form. They are intrinsically morally disordered and when willed for their own end are gravely sinful; never to be excused or condoned. I repeat that for those homosexuals in whom their act of will regarding their predilection has been diminished to the point of virtual negation [ref. pastoral care documents] there is little if no sin involved in their character ; and the sinfulness resides in any sexual acts themselves ; a celibate chaste homosexual can validly lead a virtuous life . For others who have been contaminated by nurture, socio-cultural influences where will has been diminished; any sinfulness is shared by the individual, those of misguided intent, and by us all who through our sinfulness 'conspire in original sin' [von Balthasar and Ratzinger [after Augustine]]. Only where there is a modicum of free-will in the choice of sexuality is personal culpability a source of grave matter - the moral disorder becoming predicated to the person rather than external sources.
If I implied confusion between the state-in-itself and the sexual acts of mind or body I apologise; it was never my intent.
Yes, it is twenty years since I entered seminary [leaving priestly training in '92] but have spent many years dealing with the newly ordained and middle-aged priests and am still in correspondence with many. I have two close friends who are vocations directors and am aware of the significant reforms [regrettably normally reactive rather than pro-active] that dioceses and seminaries have enforced; and the hope that some newly ordained, by continuing their study and training and friendship, brings to the church of the future.
But...[and it's a big but],
What about now?
Catholicism is on a precipice in the western world...
Come the next generation we will have a catholic population that will have had no decent catechesis, the majority will be non-attendant at anything save the 'matching-hatching-dispatching' - even now child-attendance at sunday mass [even among those who attend catholic school] is minimal to say the least; and the majority of our orthodox traditionalist clergy will be deceased - leaving those who thrived in the way-out pragmatic hippydom of the sixties to eighties in positions of authority.
One of the main sources of hope seems to come from eastern european immigration ; but you must admit that among our children the dearth of decent catholic instruction and a general educational/clerical acedia in this regard still holds its sway. my children's catholic education at a nominally titled catholic school was reprehensible to say the least, and scandalous to those who were brought up getting a decent catholic education of previous eras.
Post a Comment